Engineering-honest metadata about the Mythsensus engine: architecture (algorithmic vs LLM), known limitations, open-source roadmap, links. Use when a user asks "is this real?" / "how accurate is it?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the type of content (metadata, architecture, limitations, roadmap, links) and an 'engineering-honest' tone, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or describe its output format. Some behavioral info is implied, but not fully disclosed.
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 a single sentence with a clear lead-in and a direct usage instruction. No filler; every word contributes.
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?
The description names the content categories and when to use it, but since there is no output schema or annotations, it could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., a text summary vs interactive page) and the absence of side effects. Still, for a metadata tool, it covers the essential context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema and description are consistent. No parameter explanation is needed; the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 specifies that the tool provides 'engineering-honest metadata about the Mythsensus engine' and lists key content areas (architecture, limitations, roadmap, links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that calculate scores or provide readings, as it targets the engine itself.
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 explicitly states 'Use when a user asks "is this real?" / "how accurate is it?"', giving clear triggers. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.
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 resource or action: engine metadata, score calculation, daily draw, system-specific reading, deity lore, system rules, and system list. No two tools overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly delineate boundaries.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (calculate_, get_, list_), but two deviate: 'about_mythsensus_engine' uses a preposition and 'daily_blessing' is an adjective_noun phrase. This minor inconsistency is easy to parse but breaks the otherwise uniform convention.
Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each covers a meaningful aspect of the divination domain without redundancy. The count feels appropriately scoped for the server's purpose.
The tool surface covers the full user journey: list systems, query rules, calculate score, get deep readings, look up deities, and draw daily blessings, plus engine transparency. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends; the domain appears fully served.
