get_factorFetch the full reference record for a factor by its slug, including all effects and a source.url citation. Slugs come from search_effects or lookup_combination results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No | Response language (default en). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the non-destructive read operation but does not mention error behavior (e.g., if slug is not found) or any other behavioral traits.
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 with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and result, the second provides context for usage.
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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it retrieves, what data is included, and where to get the input. It does not mention error cases or optional parameters, but is generally 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 coverage is 50% (only locale has a description). The description does not explain the locale parameter or its effect on the response. For a required parameter, more detail would be helpful.
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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'full reference record for a factor by its slug', and specifies the included data (effects and source.url). It also distinguishes from siblings by indicating that slugs come from 'search_effects' or 'lookup_combination'.
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 when to use this tool: after slugs are obtained from 'search_effects' or 'lookup_combination'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
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 targets a distinct entity or action: get_factor, get_placement, and get_yoga retrieve details for different types; lookup_combination queries specific placements; search_effects performs corpus search; list_life_domains lists domains. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_factor, list_life_domains, lookup_combination, search_effects). The verbs vary appropriately by action.
With 6 tools covering listing, searching, looking up, and retrieving detailed records, the count is well-scoped for a specialized Vedic astrology reference server.
Core workflows (search, lookup, detailed retrieval) are covered. Minor gaps include no direct listing of all factors or yogas, but these can be obtained via search or lookup, so agents can work around.