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 details (cinemas, session times, format, language) and the prerequisite, but does not describe error conditions or response structure.
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: first clearly states purpose, second adds return details and a prerequisite. No redundant information, front-loaded with key actions.
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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter context, and prerequisite. It lacks details on response limits or examples, but is still fairly 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%, but the description adds value by clarifying the date format and default (BRT) and specifying that movie_slug comes from list_movies, which is beyond the schema descriptions.
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 'Get showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date.' It specifies the verb, resource, and key constraints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_movies.
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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires movies_enabled on this site' and implicitly indicates usage for querying showtimes, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.
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.