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 only describes positive return values but does not disclose side effects (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, behavior when no loyalty program exists).
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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and return values. No extraneous 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 adequately covers return values (program name, points currency, tier structure). It is complete enough for a simple read-only tool, though it omits error scenarios.
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 no parameters (schema has empty properties, 100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline score for zero parameters is 4.
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 tool retrieves loyalty/rewards program details for a site, listing specific return fields (program name, points currency name, tier structure). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_site_info by focusing on loyalty 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 or not use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
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 resource: booking appointments, restaurant reservations, event tickets, searches, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar actions like create_booking and request_reservation are for different domains (appointments vs. restaurant tables).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores (e.g., get_availability, list_events, create_booking). There is no mixing of styles like camelCase or inconsistent verbs.
28 tools is above the typical well-scoped range but each tool serves a clear purpose within the comprehensive neighborhood directory domain. The count feels justified, though slightly heavy.
The tool set covers most major features of a neighborhood directory: places, events, booking, restaurant menus, reviews, forms, etc. Minor gaps exist, such as no create_review or update operations, but core workflows are complete.