Draw today's deity card from Mythsensus's 1,069-deity collection. Deterministic given (birth date, current date). Higher Cosmic Score tiers bias toward rarer deities. Returns deity, mythology origin, tier, and message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| date | No | Date to draw for, YYYY-MM-DD (optional; default today) | |
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: determinism based on birth date and current date, tier bias based on Cosmic Score, and the return structure (deity, mythology origin, tier, message). This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it could disclose more about edge cases (e.g., invalid dates or timezone handling).
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains determinism and output.
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 lack of output schema, the description states what is returned. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or usage edge cases, but the tool is relatively simple. Overall, the description covers the essential context for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could be stronger on input handling.
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 only 25% (only 'date' is described). The description adds some meaning by implying that 'year/month/day' are the birth date and 'date' is the current date, but it does not explicitly map these to schema properties or explain constraints like ranges. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.
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 action ('Draw') and the resource ('today's deity card from Mythsensus's 1,069-deity collection'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a daily card draw, as opposed to lore, scoring, or system rules.
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 usage for daily blessing draws, and the phrase 'current date' hints at when it is used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deity_lore or get_deep_reading, nor any exclusions.
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.
