List curated editorial guides ("best of" lists) published by this site — ranked places with editorial notes. The best source for "best X in this neighborhood" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max guides to return (default 20, max 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that guides are ranked and include editorial notes, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
The description is very concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the function and providing a use case.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its purpose, though it could mention ordering or pagination beyond limit.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limit'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool lists curated editorial guides and distinguishes them from other list-type tools by specifying 'best of' lists with editorial notes.
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?
The description provides clear context by stating it is 'the best source for best X in this neighborhood questions', guiding when to use it, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.
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 action and resource, such as booking, checking availability, listing events, or searching dishes. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events, search_places). The prefixes (create, get, list, search, request, reserve, rsvp, submit) are uniformly applied, and there is no mixing of cases or styles.
With 28 tools, the server covers a broad feature set for a neighborhood directory, including bookings, store, events, loyalty, menus, movies, and more. While slightly high, each tool serves a distinct purpose and is justifiable.
The tool surface appears complete for the domain: search, details, booking flows, store purchases, events, loyalty, reviews, blog, offers, profiles, forms, and FAQ are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends, and operations for CRUD or lifecycle are present where needed.