find_transferКогда прямого автобуса нет: самый дешёвый вариант через один пересадочный город, с ценами обоих плеч.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Город: русское название («Москва») или слаг (moskva) | |
| from | Yes | Город: русское название («Москва») или слаг (moskva) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool computes the cheapest option through one transfer city and includes prices for both legs. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, or behavior when no transfer route is available.
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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the usage condition and clearly states the result. Every word contributes value, with no repetition of the title or schema.
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 absence of an output schema, the description does well by specifying the result type: cheapest option via one transfer city with prices for both legs. It could be more complete by indicating what happens when no transfer route exists, but it is sufficient for a simple two-parameter search 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?
Schema coverage is 100%: both parameters are described identically in the schema as city names or slugs. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool finds the cheapest route via one transfer city with prices for both legs, specifically for cases when no direct bus exists. This distinguishes it from direct-route and destination-ranking siblings like search_routes and cheapest_destinations.
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 opening phrase 'Когда прямого автобуса нет' gives a clear condition for when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context makes the intended usage obvious relative to direct-route tools.
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.
Several tools overlap: search_routes and cheapest_destinations both list destinations from a city with price information, and city_departures/get_route both touch schedule details. The other tools are more distinct, but the listing-style tools create some ambiguity despite helpful descriptions.
Five tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_distance, get_route, get_station, find_transfer, search_routes), but cheapest_destinations, city_departures, and price_per_km_stats are descriptive noun phrases. The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but the verb convention is not uniform.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a bus travel information server. Each tool contributes a meaningful capability around routes, pricing, transfers, stations, or statistics, without feeling bloated or overly thin.
The set covers the core traveler workflow: searching routes, finding cheap options, getting detailed schedules, handling transfers, checking distances, looking up stations, and comparing price statistics. Minor gaps exist, such as no arrival-focused query or direct city-pair comparison beyond route lookup, but they are workable.