Biorhythm MCP Server by RoxyAPI

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the output comprehensively, including that compatibility varies by day (from targetDate description). It does not mention destructive actions or authentication needs, but no red flags are present.

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 redundancy. It front-loads the core functionality and output, followed by use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 details the output (scores, rating, strengths, challenges, advice, daily sync snapshot) and input logic (overlaying cycles on target date). No output schema exists, so the description compensates well, though edge cases or error handling are omitted.

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 lang and targetDate have direct descriptions; person1 and person2 objects lack top-level descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the missing object descriptions.

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 calculates biorhythm compatibility between two people, specifying the returned data (per-cycle scores, overall score, rating, strengths, challenges, advice, daily sync snapshot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like critical_days or daily.

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 use case scenarios ('Perfect for dating apps, relationship platforms, team-building tools, and couples coaching applications'), indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of explaining behavior. It details that the tool returns critical days with cycle name, period, direction, severity, and advisory text, and highlights rare double and triple crossings. It also notes the maximum range of 180 days, providing sufficient behavioral context for a read-only tool.

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, well-structured paragraph that starts with the core purpose and then enumerates return details and use cases. It is concise without extraneous information, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, return values, and ideal use cases. It is missing potential error conditions or authentication notes, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with examples and defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as further clarifying data types or constraints, so the value added is minimal.

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 'find' and the resource 'critical days (zero crossings)', and specifies the scope within a date range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like post_biorhythm_daily and post_biorhythm_phases by focusing on zero crossings, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 lists ideal use cases such as calendar integrations and alert engines, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some room for improvement in guiding the agent's decision.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains deterministic behavior (same seed+date same result), spotlight cycle selection, and return fields (energy, phase, etc.). It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a read-only tool.

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 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, determinism, use cases, return fields. No redundant 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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: input parameters, deterministic behavior, returned data (energy, phase, spotlight, message, advice), and use cases. It is complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, but description adds context: explains seed purpose (reproducibility, unique identifiers), date use (past/future), and lang fallback. It clarifies why parameters matter (e.g., seed for consistent daily readings).

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 retrieves a daily biorhythm reading with seeded randomness. It specifies the resource (daily biorhythm) and verb (get), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing daily check-in features and consistent seeding.

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 recommends use cases: daily push notifications, morning briefings, wellness check-ins. It implies this tool is for daily consistent readings, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behaviors: generating forecasts for a date range, returning cycle values, energy ratings, critical days, and a summary. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor mention any error conditions or rate limits.

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, each providing essential information. The first sentence defines the core functionality, and the second sentence lists outputs and ideal use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return values (cycles, energy, critical days, summary). It is fairly complete for a forecast tool, though it could mention the exact data structure or lack of pagination. The ideal use cases add 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only summarizes the overall output. The description mentions the 90-day range, which is already in the endDate parameter description.

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 'Generate a biorhythm forecast for a date range up to 90 days' and lists specific outputs (daily cycle values, energy ratings, critical days, summary with best/worst day). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_biorhythm_daily (single day) or post_biorhythm_critical_days (only critical days).

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 mentions 'Ideal for wellness apps, productivity planners, scheduling tools, and calendar integrations that need forward-looking biorhythm data', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, description fully bears behavioral disclosure. Lists exact return fields (value, phase name, label, day position, etc.) and states it returns a compact summary. Could explicitly mention no side effects but overall transparent.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first defines core purpose and what is omitted, second lists return fields and use cases. No waste, front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, description compensates by detailing return fields. Mentions compact summary and use cases. Lacks error handling or timezone details beyond schema default, but sufficient for a lightweight retrieval tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about output but no additional parameter-level details beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it gets current phase information for all 10 biorhythm cycles without the full interpretation payload. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying lightweight nature versus editorial text.

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?

Explicitly designed for dashboards, widgets, status bars, and quick-check interfaces that need phase data without editorial text. Implies preferred use over post_biorhythm_reading but lacks when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is positive but lacks cautions or side-effect details, which is adequate but not thorough.

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 paragraph with two sentences, front-loading purpose then listing outputs and use cases. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining output list). No wasted words, but not maximally terse.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (10 cycles, phases, etc.) and use cases. It does not mention default targetDate behavior or error handling, but for a simple 3-param tool, it is nearly complete. A slight gap is the missing default behavior note.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing outputs; it does not enhance parameter understanding (e.g., format constraints or examples are already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates a complete biorhythm reading for a given birth date and target date, listing all outputs (10 cycles, phases, energy rating, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like post_biorhythm_daily by emphasizing completeness and structured data.

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 context for when to use the tool (wellness apps, dating platforms, etc.) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios where alternative sibling tools (e.g., post_biorhythm_daily) would be more appropriate. It gives clear usage context but lacks exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.