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 states it returns specific fields but does not explicitly disclose that it is a read-only operation or mention any potential error states (e.g., if no loyalty program is configured). The verb 'Get' implies safety, but lacks explicit behavioral context.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and immediately describes the return value, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what is returned. However, it does not mention behavior when no loyalty program exists (e.g., returns null/error), which could be helpful for agents handling edge cases.
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?
There are zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, meeting the baseline. The description correctly indicates no input is required.
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 gets loyalty/rewards program details, specifying exact return values (program name, points currency name, tier structure). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_site_info which likely returns generic site info.
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 this tool vs alternatives like get_site_info. The use case is implied by the description but not stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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 domain action, with clear boundaries between similar operations (e.g., create_booking vs request_reservation vs reserve_event_tickets). Descriptions provide enough context to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_events. No mixing of styles or ambiguous verbs.
28 tools is slightly above average but appropriate for a multi-feature neighborhood directory covering bookings, events, movies, menus, forms, etc. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, justifying the count.
The tool set covers most expected operations for a directory site: search, details, reviews, booking, events, menus, blog, FAQ, forms, etc. Minor gaps like cancellation or user booking history are acceptable given the domain scope.