Get showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date. Returns each cinema with session times, format (e.g. "Laser", "3D"), and language (Dublado/Legendado). Requires movies_enabled on this site.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today (BRT). | |
| movie_slug | Yes | Movie slug from list_movies (e.g. "o-corvo-1016084"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content and a prerequisite, but does not mention idempotency, authorization details beyond the prerequisite, error handling, or absence of 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return content, with no extraneous information.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and a prerequisite. It is mostly complete but could detail the return structure more explicitly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., 'movie slug from list_movies') but largely reiterates schema information, adding marginal value.
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 gets showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in the neighborhood for a given date, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_movies (which lists movies) and get_availability (which likely covers different resources).
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 notes a prerequisite (movies_enabled on the site) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
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 operation: bookings, restaurants, events, forms, etc. Even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are clearly differentiated by domain and description.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). Collection retrieval uses list_ while single item uses get_, which is a standard and clear convention.
28 tools is on the upper end, but each serves a distinct function for a comprehensive neighborhood directory (places, events, booking, forms, etc.). No obvious bloat given the scope.
The tool surface covers all major user intents for a local directory: searching places, getting menus, booking services, viewing events, submitting forms, etc. No critical gaps are apparent.