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, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns menu data with dietary labels, implying a read operation. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the behavior is well-described for a retrieval tool.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds necessary 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?
Given the single required parameter, clear description of what is returned, and no output schema, the description is fully complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 one parameter. Description adds value by explaining how to obtain the place_slug (from search_places or URL), beyond the schema's example. This compensates well for the low parameter count.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves food menus for a specific restaurant, listing return contents (sections, dishes, prices, dietary labels). It distinguishes from sibling tools by advising to first use search_places or list_categories.
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 obtain the place_slug, providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but given the tool's specificity, it is adequately guided.
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.