List active promotions and deals available in this neighborhood directory. Returns discount label, promo code (if any), CTA link, validity window, and which business/place it belongs to. FLASH offers have a countdown deadline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Filter by offer kind. FLASH = time-limited flash sale with countdown. Omit to return all active offers. | |
| limit | No | Max offers to return (default 20, max 60). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields (discount label, promo code, etc.) and notes that FLASH offers have a countdown deadline, which are valuable behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss any 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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the core purpose and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the returned fields, mentions the special FLASH behavior, and covers the limit parameter implicitly. It lacks details on pagination beyond 'max 60' and error cases, but these are minor for a list tool.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (kind and limit). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool lists active promotions and deals, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes FLASH offers from standard ones, and the resource ('promotions and deals') differentiates it from siblings like list_products or list_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?
The description implies usage for listing offers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_products or list_events. No when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tool mentions are given.
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.