Get ticket types and prices for a specific event (Wix Events). Pass the event slug from list_events. Returns ticket names, prices, sale status, and how many are left.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_slug | Yes | Event slug from list_events. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses return contents (ticket names, prices, sale status, availability count). It implies a read-only operation without side effects, which is appropriate. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage guidance and return info. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and return content. It could mention potential errors or authentication, but the completeness is adequate given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter event_slug. The description repeats that the slug comes from list_events, adding no new detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool gets ticket types and prices for a specific Wix Events event. It distinguishes this from sibling tools that handle bookings, checkouts, etc., by specifying the exact resource (ticket info) and context (Wix Events).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description instructs the agent to pass the event slug from list_events, providing a clear prerequisite. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare alternatives, the context is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Even similar operations like create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and the entities they handle (bookable services, restaurant tables, paid events, free events). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). This uniform convention makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to understand and select from.
With 28 tools, the set is relatively large, exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While each tool serves a specific purpose within the neighborhood directory domain, the count feels heavy and may overwhelm simple use cases. A reduction or grouping could improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range of user-facing operations for a neighborhood directory: searching places, browsing menus, booking services, reserving tables and event tickets, listing products and events, retrieving reviews and FAQs, and submitting forms. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation or create_review tool), but the core workflows are well-supported.
