AsterNym

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the year boundary is Li Chun, a missing time produces no hour pillar and the response explicitly says so, and no noon substitution is made. Nothing contradicts the 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?

Four sentences, with the return payload front-loaded before the important behavioral caveats. Only the 'same thing over HTTP: POST ...' sentence is arguably redundant, but it is short and does not obscure the needed 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?

For a complex divination tool with no output schema, the description enumerates all major returned data and flags two decisive input edge cases: Li Chun and missing time. It does not specify response formatting, errors, or rate limits, but the annotation-safety profile plus schema cover most operational gaps.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining the date-boundary rule that affects 'date' interpretation and the no-hour-pillar behavior that depends on 'time'. It does not describe 'tz' or 'agent', but the schema covers those adequately.

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 enumerates a specific output set—pillars, day master, hidden stems with ten gods, element counts, dominant/missing elements, na yin, twelve stages, and void branches—so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. The title's 'Four Pillars alone' plus the sibling list distinguishes it from asternym_bazi_hours, numerology, reading, and zodiac.

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 use when a BaZi Four Pillars chart is needed and clarifies edge cases such as missing time and the Li Chun year boundary, but it never names an alternative or states when not to use this tool versus asternym_bazi_hours or other siblings. Usage guidance is inferred from the title and content, not explicit.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 23:00-00:00 slot is returned separately as lateZi, the hour pillar turns at 23:00 while the day pillar does not, and the tool returns element counts for the whole chart at each hour. It also notes the HTTP endpoint, which is extra transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the lateZi edge case and the distinction from Western hours. The HTTP endpoint sentence is slightly redundant but not wasteful. Every sentence earns 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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (lateZi) and the scope of results. It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but with no output schema and a clear description of what is returned, this 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about the date being a local civil date and the element parameter ranking hours, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the twelve Chinese double-hours of a civil date, with hour pillar, hidden stems, ten god, and element counts. It explicitly distinguishes from Western planetary hours and mentions the lateZi edge case, making it distinct from siblings like asternym_bazi.

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 explains the lateZi/earlyZi distinction and clarifies these are Chinese double-hours, not Western planetary hours. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to use this vs asternym_bazi, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for hour-level BaZi data.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the name is discarded and never stored, the agent field is never required or verified, and master numbers are kept where the position allows. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the most important information: what the tool computes. The HTTP endpoint line is slightly redundant for an MCP tool but is short and informative, so it does not meaningfully hurt conciseness.

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?

For a read-only, four-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description explains both the computed outputs and the handling of optional inputs. While there is no output schema, the enumerated result list largely compensates; the main remaining gap is explicit guidance on choosing among sibling tools.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter-specific detail. It does add some semantic value by clarifying that omitting the name means name numbers are not guessed, and that the surname is used where the method requires the full name.

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 identifies the resource as Pythagorean numerology and enumerates the exact outputs: Life Path, birthday number, and name-derived numbers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (bazi, zodiac, reading) by naming the specific numerological system and its components.

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 gives useful context about behavior with and without a name, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings like asternym_bazi or asternym_reading. Usage is implied by the method name rather than stated.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the operational detail of a POST endpoint but nothing about expected return format, error behavior, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but also does not go beyond them in a meaningful way.

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 only two sentences, with the first listing the output components and the second giving the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The mention of the HTTP endpoint, while useful, is a minor extra that could be omitted, but overall it is efficient and does not waste words.

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?

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description does list what the reading includes, which is helpful. However, it does not explain edge cases such as missing time or place, nor does it indicate that it combines all the sub-readings. Given the sibling tools, more guidance on when this is appropriate would improve completeness. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks sufficient context for effective selection.

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?

The input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add any additional meaning to the parameters—it only lists the output components. It does not clarify how 'time' and 'place' affect the result, or the optional 'agent' field. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool produces: 'Sun sign, Chinese animal and element, BaZi day master and pillars, Life Path and the AsterNym identity.' The title also calls it 'a whole reading,' which conveys it is an aggregate. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like asternym_bazi or asternym_zodiac; the 'whole' is inferred rather than stated as an alternative to separate readings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description only says it is 'the same engine as every page on the site' and provides an HTTP endpoint, but does not mention that for a single BaZi or zodiac analysis, one should use the specific sibling tools. An agent is left to infer the distinction from the 'whole' wording, which is not explicit enough.

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?

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond the annotations: it reports cusps rather than resolving them by assuming noon, and it explicitly states the calendar boundary choice (Lunar New Year over Li Chun). Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, these added details about calculation behavior provide meaningful context not available in structured fields. No contradiction with 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 two sentences long plus a note about the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the calendar clarification, and finally the alternative access method. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

Despite the tool having 6 parameters (only 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it returns, how cusps are handled, the calendar boundary choice, and an alternative HTTP access method. It provides enough for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without missing critical context. The complexity is moderate, and the description is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions cusp handling but that is a global behavior, not param-specific). It does not elaborate on tz, lat, lng, time, or agent beyond schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns both the Western sun sign (from ecliptic longitude) and the Chinese animal with element and polarity. It uses specific terminology ('Sun's sign from its apparent ecliptic longitude', 'Chinese animal, element and polarity') and distinguishes from the BaZi tool by highlighting the calendar boundary difference (Lunar New Year vs Li Chun). This clearly differentiates it from siblings.

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 when to use this tool versus the BaZi tool by noting the calendar difference ('the Chinese year here turns at Lunar New Year, while the BaZi year pillar turns at Li Chun'). This gives context for selection, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or say 'use this when'. Still, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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