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?
With no annotations provided, the description effectively conveys that this is a read-only operation returning static program details. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the behavior is straightforward and non-destructive.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The description lists key return fields (program name, points currency, tier structure) but does not mention potential additional fields like program description or expiration. However, for a loyalty program detail tool, this coverage is adequate.
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% automatically. The description adds value by explaining the return content beyond the schema's implicit scope.
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 and lists specific return fields (program name, points currency name, tier structure). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other entities like bookings, events, or products.
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 is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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 (bookings, store, events, restaurants, movies, etc.) with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate their purposes. Overlap is minimal and handled by context, such as create_booking vs create_checkout vs request_reservation.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using prefixes like get_, list_, create_, search_, etc. The naming is predictable and makes it easy to infer the action and resource.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (places, events, movies, blog, forms, etc.). The count reflects the integration of multiple Wix apps, which is appropriate for a comprehensive directory.
The tool set covers most user-facing operations for a directory: search places, get details, book services, events, restaurant menus, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation for bookings, no update operations), but these are likely out of scope for a public-facing server.
