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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns detailed place info without side effects or auth requirements, which is adequate. However, it does not mention rate limits or error handling.
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 one sentence that efficiently lists the returned fields. It is reasonably concise, though slightly verbose in enumerating all fields.
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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the return value. Lacks mention of error cases, but for a simple get tool this is 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 a clear description for the slug parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a specific place by URL slug, listing included fields (opening hours, open_now, attributes, delivery, ratings, address, neighborhood). This distinguishes it from search_places and other siblings.
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 implicitly indicates when to use (when you have a slug and need detailed info) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like search_places.
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 or action: search, get, list, create, submit, etc. Potential overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation vs reserve_event_tickets are clarified by descriptions distinguishing appointment booking, restaurant table requests, and event ticket holds.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., list_services, get_place, create_booking). No mixing of styles, and verbs accurately describe the operation.
28 tools is slightly above typical range but well-justified given the breadth of the site (places, events, movies, food, booking, forms, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bloated.
Covers major read and action scenarios for a neighborhood directory. Missing update/delete operations for places and bookings, but those are likely not exposed via this API. Minor gaps like canceling reservations are handled externally.