get_registry_metaEvaluate the registry itself: per-city coverage (with each city's IANA timezone), merchant/bookable counts, verification and freshness stats, feedback corpus size, schema version, and the documented deterministic ordering rule. Honest by design — including how stale the data is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses a read-only evaluation, including output details like per-city timezone, counts, freshness stats, and ordering rule. The phrase 'honest by design — including how stale the data is' adds transparency about data staleness.
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, front-loaded with the core action ('Evaluate the registry itself'), and every detail (coverage, counts, stats, honesty) adds value without 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what data is returned and the 'honest' nature. It lacks explicit mention of how results are emitted (e.g., JSON format), but the detail is adequate for a metadata 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly avoids parameter explanations, maintaining a baseline score of 4.
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 explicitly states the tool evaluates the registry itself, listing specific attributes (per-city coverage, counts, stats). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on bookings, merchants, or availability.
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?
Usage context is implied by listing registry-wide metrics, but there is no explicit statement on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like search_merchants or get_booking_status.
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.
Every tool has a clear and distinct purpose: booking operations (place, modify, cancel, status), merchant discovery (search, details, availability), registry metadata, and feedback submission. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern using underscore_case (e.g., place_booking, get_merchant, search_merchants). Verbs are descriptive and consistent across the set.
9 tools are well-scoped for a booking registry server, covering all necessary operations without being overly numerous or sparse. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search merchants, get details and availability, place/modify/cancel bookings, check status, submit feedback, and registry metadata. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.