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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (program name, points currency, tier details) but does not mention error conditions (e.g., no loyalty program exists) or idempotency.
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?
Two sentences: first defines action and resource, second details return fields. No extraneous words, front-loaded and efficient.
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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns. It is complete given the tool's simplicity.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but doesn't need to.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'loyalty/rewards program details', specifying the exact return fields (program name, points currency name, tier structure). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle booking, events, or places.
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 to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. However, the parameterless nature and specific domain make usage implied; it's a simple getter for loyalty data.
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 action and domain, with clear descriptions preventing confusion. Similar tools like create_booking, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, and rsvp_event are differentiated by service type and workflow.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_categories), ensuring predictability and ease of use for agents.
With 28 tools, the set is fairly large but appropriate for a comprehensive neighborhood directory covering multiple domains (places, events, booking, store, forms, etc.). Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of common user needs: search and discovery, detailed info, reservations, purchases, and interactions (forms, FAQs). No obvious gaps for the described purpose of a neighborhood directory.