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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes what data is returned, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what if slug not found). The description adds value beyond no annotations but leaves gaps.
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 sentence that packs significant detail about return fields. While slightly dense, it is efficient and front-loads the tool's purpose and key output.
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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by listing all returned fields and even details the delivery array structure. It adequately covers the tool's output, but omits error scenarios and performance notes. Still, for a simple getter, it is sufficiently complete.
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% (slug described as URL slug). The description repeats this context (by its URL slug) but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
The description uses specific verbs ('get full details') and resource ('place by its URL slug'), enumerating exact fields returned (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery, ratings, address, neighborhood), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_places.
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 this tool is for retrieving detailed info on a known slug, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_places. However, the context of siblings and the specific slug parameter make usage clear.
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 (e.g., create_booking, create_checkout, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, rsvp_event all differ in purpose). Even similar-sounding tools like search_places and list_categories serve complementary roles (search vs taxonomy). No ambiguity.
All 28 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range but appropriate for the comprehensive scope of a neighborhood directory covering multiple Wix integrations (bookings, events, store, restaurants, etc.). Slightly heavy but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of a neighborhood directory: search, details, reviews, menus, booking, events, movies, offers, forms, FAQs, loyalty, etc. No obvious gaps; each domain has create/read/update/delete where applicable.