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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Get', and it discloses what the tool returns in concrete terms. It doesn't mention potential errors or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only information retrieval with no parameters, this is adequate.
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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, followed by the return details. It is concise and every clause adds meaning, though it is slightly longer than necessary. Overall, it is efficient and clearly structured.
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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information about the tool's behavior and return values. It lists the key fields returned, covering the main aspects of the loyalty program. It doesn't explain the format of the tier structure, but for a simple GET-like tool, this is sufficient.
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 the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to describe, which is appropriate.
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's purpose: it retrieves loyalty/rewards program details for the site, specifically Wix Loyalty. It lists the specific information returned (program name, points currency name, tier structure with required points per tier), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which relate to loyalty.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever loyalty/rewards program details are needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but there are no other loyalty-related tools among the siblings, so excluding alternatives is not necessary. The context is clear and there are no exclusionary clauses.
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 resource or action (e.g., create_booking vs create_checkout, reserve_event_tickets vs rsvp_event), and descriptions provide clear boundaries. Even closely related tools like list_booking_services and list_pricing_plans are differentiated by context.
All 26 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, search_, etc.), with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 26 tools, the set is on the heavy side and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the diversity reflects a multi-featured directory covering bookings, events, store, reviews, forms, and more. Each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The surface covers the core user workflows: search, view details, book services, reserve/RSVP events, request reservations, submit forms, and browse content. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancellation/update for bookings, no full blog post body), but these are workarounds and not critical for a consumer-facing directory.
