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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific details and implies a read operation. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential absence of a loyalty program.
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 sentence that starts with the action verb 'Get' and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description lists what is returned. It is adequate for a simple info tool, though it could mention error cases or prerequisites.
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 and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info.
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 retrieves loyalty/rewards program details for the site (Wix Loyalty) and specifies what is returned (program name, points currency, tier structure). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other 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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The context implies use when loyalty info is needed, but no guidance on when not to use or comparison with siblings like get_site_info.
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 targets a distinct domain (e.g., booking, restaurant reservation, event RSVP, movie showtimes) with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Overlapping verbs like 'create' are used for different resource types, and the descriptions explicitly distinguish their contexts.
All 28 tools follow a strict verb_noun pattern with underscores, e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events. No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verb styles.
28 tools is at the upper end of reasonable for a broad neighborhood directory server covering places, bookings, events, movies, store, forms, and more. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count feels slightly high for a single server.
The tool surface covers core discovery and booking initiation (search, detail, book, reserve), but lacks lifecycle operations like cancel, update, or list user's existing bookings. Several operations require external checkout or confirmation links, creating workflow gaps.