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?
The description is straightforward but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it could mention that the tool does not modify data.
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 two concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: the first states the action and scope, the second lists the output. No extraneous information.
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 input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output. However, it lacks any mention of authentication requirements or the possibility of empty results if no loyalty program exists.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by detailing the return content beyond the empty schema. It lists three specific pieces of information returned, though it does not cover all possible fields or structure.
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 action (Get) and resource (loyalty/rewards program details), specifies the context (Wix Loyalty), and lists exact return fields (program name, points currency name, tier structure). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_site_info which covers general site details.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as requiring a loyalty program to be set up, or suggest when other tools might be more appropriate.
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., bookings, events, places, menus, forms), with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate even similar operations like create_booking vs. reserve_event_tickets. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events). Verbs are semantically appropriate (create, get, list, search, submit) and predictable.
28 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the neighborhood directory domain justifies each tool. The count feels dense but not excessive, with no redundant tools.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a neighborhood directory: place search, restaurant menus, events, movie showtimes, booking, reviews, blog, guides, offers, loyalty, forms, and profiles. Obvious gaps like review creation are absent but likely out of scope.
