Get the loyalty/rewards program details for this site (Wix Loyalty). Returns program name, points currency name, and tier structure with required points per tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error cases. For a simple getter, it likely has no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 efficiently convey purpose and output. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes meaning.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return structure. It does not mention site-level prerequisites (e.g., loyalty must be enabled), but the description is adequate for typical use.
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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description adds value by describing the output: program name, points currency name, and tier structure. With 100% schema coverage (empty schema is fully described), the description provides necessary semantic context about the return data.
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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('loyalty/rewards program details for this site'). It lists concrete return fields (program name, points currency name, tier structure), distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover different domains.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, no sibling tool has a similar purpose, so the context implies it is the correct choice for loyalty info. A brief mention of when not to use or prerequisites would elevate the score.
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 clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation are clarified by domain (appointments vs restaurant) and mechanics.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). The same conjugation style (snake_case) is used throughout, with no mixing of conventions.
At 28 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but each tool corresponds to a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory, making the count reasonable for the breadth of functionality.
The tool surface covers all major user-facing actions: searching, browsing, booking, purchasing, and retrieving information. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of a neighborhood directory.
