Get one rewards/players-club program by id — brand, earning rules, status-match notes, and full tier ladder. (get_casino also returns a casino's program inline.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Rewards program id (UUID), from list_rewards_programs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It lists the returned data (brand, rules, notes, tier ladder) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but could be improved.
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?
Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every part contributes meaning. No unnecessary words or complexity.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and how to use it. However, it does not mention potential errors, data freshness, or pagination (though not expected). Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Only one parameter 'id' exists, and its schema description already explains it as a UUID from list_rewards_programs. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond this. Since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.
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?
Description explicitly states the action 'Get one rewards/players-club program by id' and specifies the returned fields: brand, earning rules, status-match notes, and full tier ladder. It also distinguishes from sibling tool get_casino by noting the alternative inline return.
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?
Description clearly indicates when to use this tool (to get a program by id) and mentions that get_casino also returns program info inline, providing context for choosing between tools. However, it does not include explicit 'when not to use' or additional usage constraints.
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.
There is some overlap between get_casino and get_rewards_program, as both return rewards program details. The player_action tool is a broad proxy that may cover actions not fully defined, potentially causing confusion.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get, list, search), but player_action deviates by using noun_verb, which is slightly inconsistent.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying casino and rewards information and executing player actions, not overburdened.
The set covers retrieving and searching for casinos and rewards programs, and the player_action tool covers many authenticated actions. However, it lacks update or create capabilities for the data model, which may be acceptable.
