get_placementFetch the full reference record for a per-lagna placement (Bhrigu Samhita) by its slug — e.g. 'Sun in the 1st House for Aries Ascendant' — including its component factors, all effects and a source.url citation.
| 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?
Describes what the tool returns (factors, effects, source citation) and implies read-only behavior via 'Fetch'. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; it adequately discloses core behavior but lacks specifics on idempotency or caching.
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?
Single sentence front-loads the purpose and includes examples. Slightly run-on with dashes, but no unnecessary words. Efficient for the information conveyed.
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, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the return structure and key components. Lacks discussion of error conditions or limitations, but adequate for a straightforward fetch operation.
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?
Provides a concrete example for the slug parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the locale parameter is not mentioned in the description, and schema coverage is 50%. The description partially compensates for the undocumented slug but does not cover locale.
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?
Clearly states it fetches a full reference record for a per-lagna placement by slug, with specific examples and included components. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_factor' and 'get_yoga' by focusing on placement records.
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?
Implied usage context (fetching a placement record) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives like 'lookup_combination' or 'search_effects', leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
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.