Get full details for a specific place by its URL slug, including opening hours, a precomputed open_now boolean, amenity attributes (slugs), a delivery array of curated delivery-app deep-links (ifood, rappi, uber-eats — each { platform, url }), ratings, address, and neighborhood.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | URL slug of the place, e.g. "cafe-example". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It details the return fields: opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery array (with platform/url format), ratings, address, and neighborhood. This goes beyond simply naming outputs by specifying structure (e.g., 'delivery array of curated delivery-app deep-links'). However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or idempotency.
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 a single, well-constructed sentence that fronts the verb and object, enumerates key outputs, and uses active voice. Every clause adds value without redundancy or filler.
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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values—including the structure of the delivery array—to inform an agent of what to expect. It lacks details on error responses or optional fields, but for a simple get tool, it covers the essential output context.
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 description adds minimal value over the schema's own description of 'slug' as 'URL slug of the place, e.g. "cafe-example".' The description contextualizes the slug in the tool's purpose but does not provide additional semantic information beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 starts with 'Get full details for a specific place by its URL slug,' which clearly identifies the action (get details) and the resource (place). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_places' (search) by focusing on retrieving a single place via slug.
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 use when you have a specific place's URL slug and need comprehensive details. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context of 'full details' suggests it is the appropriate tool for depth over breadth.
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.