list_tracked_hotelsList the hotels currently being tracked (all trackings are public), with current price, change since tracking started, stay dates and per-item booking_url / track_page_url, sorted with the biggest price drops first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (default 20). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds useful behavioral context: all trackings are public, results are sorted by biggest price drops first, and each item includes price, change, stay dates, and URLs. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main action and scope, then efficiently lists the returned fields and sorting behavior. No filler or redundancy.
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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and a clear read-only operation. The description covers what is returned, the sorting rule, and the public nature of the data, which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema.
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?
There is only one optional parameter, limit, and the schema already documents it with a default and valid range. The description adds no new meaning to the parameter, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('hotels currently being tracked'), plus the exact fields returned and the sort order. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like search_hotels or list_hotel_deals because it is specifically about tracked hotels.
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 clearly implies the use case: retrieving currently tracked hotels rather than searching all hotels or listing deals. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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 has a distinct role: search_hotels finds hotels, track_hotel_price starts tracking, list_tracked_hotels shows active trackings, get_price_history details one tracking, and list_hotel_deals surfaces discounts. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same imperative verb + noun pattern with snake_case: get_price_history, list_hotel_deals, list_tracked_hotels, search_hotels, track_hotel_price. The naming is predictable and consistent.
Five tools is well-scoped for a hotel price tracker: hotel discovery, tracking creation, tracking listing, price history retrieval, and deal browsing. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The core workflow is well covered: search, track, list, and inspect history, plus a deals view. The main gap is the lack of an explicit way to stop/delete a tracking or update tracking parameters, though this may be intentionally unsupported for anonymous public trackings.