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 provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output and prerequisite, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Adequate for a read operation.
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 purpose, includes prerequisite. No unnecessary words. Efficient.
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?
Describes output structure (cinemas, times, format, language) and prerequisites. Does not cover error handling or edge cases (e.g., no showtimes found), but is sufficient given simple tool and 100% schema coverage.
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% for both parameters. Description repeats information from schema (e.g., movie_slug example, date format/default) without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'showtimes for a specific movie at cinemas in this neighborhood, for a given date.' Explains return fields (cinemas, times, format, language). No explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but purpose is specific.
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?
Implied usage: when you need showtimes for a movie on a date. Mentions prerequisite 'Requires movies_enabled on this site.' but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.
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 action and resource: booking appointments, restaurant reservations, event tickets, searches, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are for different domains (appointments vs. restaurant tables).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., get_availability, list_events, create_booking). There is no mixing of styles like camelCase or inconsistent verbs.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range but each tool serves a clear purpose within the comprehensive neighborhood directory domain. The count feels justified, though slightly heavy.
The tool set covers most major features of a neighborhood directory: places, events, booking, restaurant menus, reviews, forms, etc. Minor gaps exist, such as no create_review or update operations, but core workflows are complete.