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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return values but does not explicitly state it is read-only or idempotent. For a GET operation, this is minimally 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, efficient sentence front-loading the purpose and details. No wasted words.
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 output schema, the description explains return values adequately. For a simple read with no parameters, it is complete but could mention fallback behavior if loyalty is not configured.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
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 it retrieves loyalty/rewards program details for a site, specifying return fields (program name, points currency, tier structure). It distinguishes from siblings like get_site_info by focusing on loyalty-specific data.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although no parameters suggest it's always safe, there is no explicit guidance on context 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 resource and action (e.g., create_booking, create_checkout, request_reservation, reserve_event_tickets, rsvp_event all differ in purpose). Even similar-sounding tools like search_places and list_categories serve complementary roles (search vs taxonomy). No ambiguity.
All 28 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
28 tools is above the typical 3-15 range but appropriate for the comprehensive scope of a neighborhood directory covering multiple Wix integrations (bookings, events, store, restaurants, etc.). Slightly heavy but well-scoped.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of a neighborhood directory: search, details, reviews, menus, booking, events, movies, offers, forms, FAQs, loyalty, etc. No obvious gaps; each domain has create/read/update/delete where applicable.