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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly details the return contents: 'ticket names, prices, sale status, and how many are left'. This provides good transparency about the tool's output and behavior.
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 just two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage and output details. Every sentence adds value without 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output well. It could mention that it is read-only or has no side effects, but overall it is complete enough.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema already states 'Event slug from list_events'. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so a 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 explicitly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'ticket types and prices', and the context 'for a specific event (Wix Events)'. It also specifies the required input ('event slug from list_events'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.
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 explains that the event slug must come from list_events, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not contrast this tool with siblings like reserve_event_tickets or rsvp_event, missing an opportunity to differentiate usage scenarios.
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 domain (e.g., bookings, events, places, restaurants, movies, forms) with clear boundaries. Even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are differentiated by service type (appointment vs restaurant table) and payment flow.
All 28 tools follow the consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). Verbs are appropriate and predictable, with no mixing of conventions.
28 tools is slightly above the typical range, but each tool serves a distinct purpose within the comprehensive neighborhood directory domain. The count is justified by the breadth of features (booking, events, restaurants, movies, etc.).
The tool surface covers most user needs: searching, viewing details, booking, reservations, events, forms, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancellation tools for bookings/reservations, but the core workflows are well-supported.