viajante

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Look up point transfers

lookup_transfers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check which credit card rewards transfer to a loyalty program and estimate points from a local transfer table; does not check live award availability.

Instructions

Local card-to-program transfer table. Not live award availability.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "program": "<program>",
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_transfers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`points`	Yes
`program`	Yes
`balances`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`empty_note`	Yes
`error_code`	Yes
`observed_at`	Yes
`retry_after`	Yes
`completeness`	Yes
`empty_reason`	Yes
`observed_at_basis`	Yes
`retry_after_seconds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.5.2Oct 19, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / balances / title
```
Removed value: -"Balances"
```
removedInput schema / properties / points / title
```
Removed value: -"Points"
```
removedInput schema / properties / program / title
```
Removed value: -"Program"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"lookup_transfersArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "completeness": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "blocked"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "empty_note": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "empty_reason": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "enum": [
+            "provider_empty",
+            "filtered_out",
+            "not_loaded"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "error_code": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "observed_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "observed_at_basis": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "enum": [
+            "provider",
+            "fetch"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "retry_after": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "retry_after_seconds": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ok",
+        "no_results",
+        "rate_limited",
+        "blocked",
+        "timeout",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "completeness",
+    "empty_reason",
+    "empty_note",
+    "error_code",
+    "retry_after",
+    "retry_after_seconds",
+    "observed_at",
+    "observed_at_basis"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.4.1Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one real addition is the staleness caveat 'Local ... not live', which usefully warns the agent the data is static, but it says nothing about freshness dates, coverage of programs, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two very short sentences with no padding, and the disqualifying condition is front-loaded. The first sentence is a verbless fragment, which slightly hurts readability but not economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions the description supplies no parameter meaning and only the barest usage boundary. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently without opening the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description explains no parameters at all. 'balances' in particular is undocumented and non-obvious (an optional array, semantics unknown), and there is no hint about the units or format expected for 'points' or 'program'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment 'Local card-to-program transfer table' identifies the resource (credit-card-to-loyalty-program transfer ratios) but never states an action verb and never names or contrasts the closest sibling, compare_awards. An agent must infer from the title that this performs a lookup rather than, say, a comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Not live award availability' gives one negative boundary, implicitly routing live-award questions elsewhere, but no alternative tool is named and the positive use case ('when you need static transfer ratios') is only implied. Reasonable but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.