get_rewardsRead customer reward balance and recent point transactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds some context about what is read (balance and recent transactions) but does not go beyond the annotations with additional behavioral detail.
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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action 'Read' and immediately specifies what data is returned.
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?
With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. Nothing critical is missing.
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 no parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The schema is trivially complete, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('customer reward balance and recent point transactions'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling get_* tools because no other sibling targets rewards.
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 context is clear: this tool is for reading reward data. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but there is no competing rewards-related sibling, so the intended usage is easy to infer.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action (cart, orders, tickets, picks, payments), so an agent can generally select the right one. The only notable ambiguity is resume_payment vs retry_payment, which both describe acting on an unpaid hosted payment attempt with nearly identical wording.
All 29 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun (or verb_preposition_noun) pattern with standard verbs like get, list, create, close, remove, and set. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic names.
At 29 tools this is a heavy surface, but the broad e-commerce scope (catalog, cart, checkout, payment, orders, support, rewards) justifies most of them. A few payment-attempt tools could be consolidated, so it sits at the overbuilt rather than absurdly bloated end.
The set covers the main customer journey from browsing/searching sarees through cart, checkout, payment status, orders, and post-purchase support. Minor gaps exist—for example, no explicit apply_coupon/redeem_points tool or standalone catalogue listing—but agents can work around them with validate_coupon, checkout summary, and search.