Квадрат Пифагора (психоматрица) по дате рождения: заполненность ячеек 1–9 и дополнительные числа. Расчёт бесплатный; развёрнутый разбор — платный продукт, инструмент даёт на него ссылку.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Дата рождения «ГГГГ-ММ-ДД» или «ДД.ММ.ГГГГ». | |
| locale | No | Язык ответа. По умолчанию ru. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations by stating the calculation is free and the tool provides a link to a paid detailed analysis. This is additional behavior not captured by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint. It also clarifies the scope of output (cells 1-9 and additional numbers) which complements the safety annotations.
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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundant details and each sentence adds value: first explains what it does, second explains cost/link behavior. No fluff.
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 (2 parameters), the description explains the output (cells 1-9 and additional numbers) and the paid-link feature. Though there is no output schema, the description sufficiently sets expectations for a free calculation that returns these data and a link. It would benefit from an explicit mention that it returns a structured representation, but overall it 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter explanations. The description does not explicitly mention parameters but the schema already provides defik for 'date' and 'locale'. The free/paid aspect is not directly parameter-related, so no increment beyond 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?
The description clearly states the tool computes the Pythagoras Square (psychomatrix) from a date of birth, specifying the output as filledness of cells 1–9 and additional numbers. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes the tool by its content focus, though sibling differentiation is not explicit.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_matrix' or other divination tools. The description implies it is for the Pythagoras Square but does not give exclusions or context on selection 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 has a clearly distinct purpose: two calculation methods (matrix and Pythagoras), card meanings for two different systems (Tarot and Lenormand), and listing operations for decks, products, and spreads, plus a reading starter. No overlap or confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: calculate_matrix, calculate_pythagoras, get_card_meaning, get_lenormand_card, list_decks, list_products, list_spreads, start_reading. The verbs (calculate, get, list, start) are semantically appropriate, and the pattern is uniform.
With 8 tools, the set is well-sized for the domain of esoteric calculations and card readings. It covers the core operations without being bloated or sparse.
The tool surface covers the main functionality: two calculation types, card meanings for two systems, listing of decks/products/spreads, and initiating a reading. No obvious gaps for the expected use cases.
