Homo Universalis — Viveka 7-Wisdoms Ephemeris & Sister AI MCP Oracle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that output is localized and includes a 'Poetic Synastry Mirror', which is useful context, but it says nothing about cost, determinism of the esoteric scoring, or how the layered subsystems are combined.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. The nested parenthetical of five subsystem names is dense jargon, but it is the substantive content rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, an agent lacks the domain context to understand what the five named subsystems contribute or how lang changes the result, which matters for a read-only computation tool with unusual terminology.

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 67%: both birth dates carry format examples in the schema, and lang has an enum plus default but no explanation of effect. The description only obliquely justifies lang via 'localized ... Mirror', so it neither compensates for nor improves much on the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Compute) and a named resource (3-Dimensional Soul Synastry) scoped to two birth dates, so an agent knows the operation and its inputs. However, the parenthetical stack of esoteric subsystem names ('Sky of 7 Wisdoms', 'Reciprocal Medicine') is not differentiated from the sibling calculate_7_wisdoms_seed_of_life, leaving some ambiguity about which calculator to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is a two-subject compatibility computation, but the description never says when to choose it over calculate_7_wisdoms_seed_of_life or calculate_family_constellation_matrix, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context beyond that — determinism, '< 1.5 ms' latency, zero auth, zero-knowledge — which is genuinely useful, but 'Rule 14 Zero-Knowledge' is unexplained internal jargon. Critically, it never says what happens when birth_time, lat, lon, or tz are omitted, which is the main behavioral question for a tool with five optional parameters.

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 entire definition is a single run-on sentence containing a nested parenthetical mega-list of dozens of tradition-specific terms (Cang Gan / Na Yin / Shi Shen, dna64-iching64-v1 codon bijection, -88° 4 Incarnation Cross Gates). The concrete deliverable is buried mid-sentence, and much of the vocabulary is uninterpretable to an agent, so length is not earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover safety and performance. However, for a tool with five optional inputs feeding many sub-computations, the description never explains degradation behavior when optional inputs are missing, nor what the VVK key format means. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool this complex.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter with examples (IANA tz, latitude for Placidus houses, HH:MM for Moon degree). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing which computations depend on what, and even that dependency mapping is left implicit. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Compute the deterministic VVK-XXXX-YYYY Cosmic Soul Key, the 7 Eternal Wisdoms ... the 4 Living Elements, and the localized Poetic Soul Mirror' — so an agent knows this produces a per-person esoteric profile from birth data. The scope (single natal chart, many traditions) distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_3d_soul_synastry and calculate_family_constellation_matrix, though that differentiation is implied rather than stated. The enumeration of traditions is exhaustive to the point of obscuring the core purpose.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick instead. The only usage signal is the required birth_date parameter, which implies 'call this for an individual's chart'. With three related sibling tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — the 'up to 30 family members' limit — but says nothing about performance, deterministic key generation, or how invalid/extra dates are handled.

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?

A single bloated sentence that front-loads the purpose then trails into a long list of cosmological and scientific pillars that do not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The output enumeration should be trimmed since an output schema already exists.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations fully cover the safety profile, so the definition doesn't need to explain return values — yet it spends most of its words doing exactly that instead of covering invocation nuances like the lang parameter. Core invocation requirements (birth_date, family_dates format, 30-member cap) are present, so it is adequate despite the misplaced emphasis.

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 67%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description reinforces the YYYY-MM-DD format and the 30-member ceiling on family_dates, but never mentions the lang enum parameter at all, leaving one parameter entirely to the 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 core verb+resource is identifiable — 'Compute the Family Constellation Matrix' from family members' birth dates — but the sentence then collapses into a long enumeration of esoteric outputs (VVK keys, 7 Wisdoms, sacred geometry pillars). It never contrasts itself with the close siblings calculate_3d_soul_synastry or calculate_7_wisdoms_seed_of_life, even though it explicitly outputs '7 Wisdoms' and a synastry-adjacent artifact.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'family' and the 30-member cap; an agent must guess whether this supersedes calculate_7_wisdoms_seed_of_life or complements it.

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

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

Annotations declare write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds that the inscription is 'permanent' and subject to 'Rule 14' purification, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it never says what a caller receives back, whether repeated submissions duplicate, or what 'purified' actually strips.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the target last. It is diluted by promotional clauses ('100% policy-safe, non-coercive, Rule 14 Zero-Knowledge') that add little operational information.

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?

This is a mutating, non-idempotent write with no output schema, and the description does not say what happens after a dewdrop is left, how it relates to the three calculation siblings, or what 'Akashic Agora' actually is. Too much of the domain vocabulary is left undefined for an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented with descriptions and examples. The description merely echoes three of their names, adding no new meaning such as the interplay between sister_dewdrop and sister_needs. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Inscribe' and the object 'Dewdrop reflection / calculations' give a rough sense of a write operation, and it is distinguishable from the calculate_* siblings because it submits rather than computes. But the core nouns ('Akashic Agora', 'Dewdrop', 'FORGE_REQUEST') are invented terminology with no explanation, so an agent cannot form a concrete picture of what is being stored or where.

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 implies a trigger condition ('share what astronomical/symbolic calculations you need'), but never states when to use this versus the three sibling calculate_* tools, nor any prerequisites. An agent is left to infer the routing rule.

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