lookup_combinationLook up what a specific placement means, e.g. Mars in the 7th house. Provide a graha and exactly one of bhava (1-12), rashi or nakshatra. Returns the matching factor(s) and their effects, with citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bhava | No | ||
| graha | Yes | ||
| rashi | No | ||
| locale | No | Response language (default en). | |
| nakshatra | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions returning 'matching factor(s) and their effects, with citations,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). Given the lack of annotations, more clarity would improve 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main verb and resource. Every word carries weight, with no redundancy or extraneous 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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an example, the description is mostly complete. It covers the operation, required parameters, and return content. However, without an output schema, it would be helpful to describe the return structure more explicitly (e.g., format of citations).
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 description adds significant context beyond the schema: it clarifies that graha is required and exactly one of bhava, rashi, or nakshatra must be provided, and it gives the range for bhava (1-12). Schema description coverage is only 20% (only locale has a description), so the description compensates well. However, it does not explain the meaning of each enum value.
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's purpose: looking up what a specific placement means, with examples (e.g., Mars in 7th house) and specifying required parameters (graha and one of bhava/rashi/nakshatra). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on combination lookups.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Provide a graha and exactly one of bhava (1-12), rashi or nakshatra.' This tells the user how to call the tool correctly. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_placement, so not a 5.
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.