Price comparison for one event across French ticket resellers (Fnac Spectacles, BilletReduc, L'Officiel des spectacles…). Returns each live offer with price, availability, booking URL, and how fresh the price is (verified_at). Recommends the cheapest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format (price, availability, URL, freshness) and that it recommends the cheapest. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does so well, but lacks mention of error cases or access constraints.
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, 28 words, first sentence sets purpose, second details output. No unnecessary 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?
The description covers the main behavioral aspects and output, but lacks explanation of error handling or edge cases (e.g., no offers found). For a simple tool, this is nearly 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?
The single parameter 'slug' is not described in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the pattern, leaving the agent uncertain about what a slug is or how to obtain it.
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 it performs price comparison for one event across specific French ticket resellers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search, get_show, and find_venues.
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 implies when to use (for comparing prices of an event) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though sibling tool names give context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
