Authenticated. Invoke any LoyaltyVIP player/host action (proxies POST /v1/player). Requires a Bearer API key in the Authorization header. Examples: tier_status, bankroll_status, list_trips, list_w2g, tax_year_summary, host_dashboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action name, e.g. tier_status | |
| params | No | Optional action parameters |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication and that it proxies a POST endpoint, but fails to mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior for different actions.
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 front-load the purpose and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
No output schema; the description does not explain return values or behavior of different actions. For a generic proxy tool, examples help but completeness is adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds examples of action names but does not explain parameter syntax or expected formats beyond what the schema provides.
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 invokes any LoyaltyVIP player/host action, with specific examples (tier_status, bankroll_status, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on casinos and rewards programs.
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 mentions authentication requirement but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied but not compared.
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.
