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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return values but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior if no loyalty program exists. It is moderately transparent for a simple getter.
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 that conveys all essential information without extraneous words. Every part adds value.
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, no output schema, and straightforward behavior, the description covers the key return fields and purpose. Minor lack of details on full response structure prevents a 5.
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, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none needed) and does not contradict any schema.
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 the loyalty/rewards program details for the site, specifying the returned fields (program name, points currency, tier structure). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from siblings that retrieve other site data (e.g., get_site_info, get_place).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
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 (booking, checkout, availability, events, reviews, etc.). Even similar-looking tools like create_booking, request_reservation, and rsvp_event are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and target systems.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_booking_services). No mixing of conventions or unclear verbs.
28 tools is on the higher end, but the server covers a wide domain (places, events, movies, booking, forms, loyalty, etc.). Each tool serves a clear purpose, so the count is justifiable, though minor trimming could be considered.
The tool set covers most workflows for a neighborhood directory: search, details, booking, events, reviews, etc. Some CRUD operations are missing (no update/delete for bookings), but these are consumer-facing actions where that is acceptable. The domain is well-covered.
