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 provided; the description does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any permissions or limitations. The action 'Get' implies safe reading, but transparency is minimal.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently states the purpose and return details with no extraneous content.
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 simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key return fields adequately. It could mention if site context or authentication is required, but largely complete.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description adds value by detailing the output fields beyond the empty schema, which provides a baseline of 4.
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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('loyalty/rewards program details'), and specifies exact return fields (name, points currency, tier structure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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 guidance on when or why to use this tool, but the context shows no similar loyalty tool. Usage is implied as the sole tool for retrieving loyalty 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 has a clear, distinct purpose. Tools like create_booking and request_reservation target different services (appointments vs. restaurant tables), and reserve_event_tickets vs. rsvp_event differentiate paid holds from free RSVPs. No overlapping functionality that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_dishes) using lowercase with underscores. No mixing of conventions or irregular verbs.
28 tools cover a broad domain of neighborhood directory services (bookings, events, movies, restaurant menus, forms, etc.). While the count is slightly high, each tool serves a specific function and is justified by the domain scope.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a neighborhood directory: search, booking, reservations, event management, menus, reviews, forms, loyalty, and more. No obvious gaps; all core user needs are addressed.
