Get the food menu for a specific restaurant on this site. Returns menus with their sections, dishes, descriptions, prices, and dietary labels (vegan, gluten-free, etc). Use search_places or list_categories first to find the restaurant's place_slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_slug | Yes | The slug of the restaurant, e.g. "bar-do-ze" (from search_places or a place URL). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses return contents well. It doesn't mention side effects or authentication, but as a read-only tool the behavior is mostly transparent.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and return structure, second gives prerequisite. No filler; every sentence earns its place.
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 adequately explains what is returned. Minor gap: no error handling mention, but acceptable.
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% with description. The tool description adds value by providing an example slug and linking to sibling tools for finding the slug, going beyond the schema.
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 it gets the food menu for a specific restaurant and lists return contents (sections, dishes, prices, dietary labels). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_dishes (cross-restaurant dish search) and get_place (general info).
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?
Explicitly instructs to use search_places or list_categories first to find the place_slug, providing clear prerequisite and usage context.
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.