Astrology Forecast MCP Server by RoxyAPI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output format (event counts, top events) and the rollup process, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention error handling, defaults for parameters like startDate, or performance considerations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and use case. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: the four windows, output breakdown, and use case. However, it does not specify exact output keys or response structure, which might be needed for full agent comprehension.

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. The description adds context about the overall output (e.g., per-domain breakdown) but does not add significant semantic value beyond the parameter descriptions already in the schema.

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: rolling a cross-domain forecast into four pre-summarized windows (24h, 7d, 30d, 90d) with event counts and top significance events. It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as a glanceable digest, contrasting with full event list tools like post_forecast_timeline.

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 quick overviews ('glanceable what-is-coming strip'), but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like post_forecast_transits or post_forecast_significant_dates. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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 carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It explains that it returns only high-significance dates, defaults to a significance floor of 70, and lists event types. However, it does not cover unexpected behavior (e.g., empty results, error handling, or response structure), leaving gaps.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, default behavior, use cases. No redundancy, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information. Slight room for improvement by explicitly mentioning output format.

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 complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description explains the filtering logic and purpose but lacks details on the response format, error conditions, or edge cases. Schema descriptions compensate for parameter details, but overall completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 adds context about the significance floor and the types of events, but the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. Thus the description adds marginal semantic value beyond the schema.

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: returning only high-significance dates from a merged cross-domain forecast for a single birth subject, listing specific event types (outer-planet aspects, sign ingresses, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the significance filtering and the specific use cases (highlights, alerts, strips).

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 'highlights, timing alerts, and at-a-glance forecast strips' but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. Sibling names like 'post_forecast_timeline' and 'post_forecast_digest' suggest scope differences, but the description does not provide exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.

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?

Discloses what the tool returns (full tropical chart with positions, houses, aspects, Ascendant, Midheaven) and location sensitivity. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Three well-structured sentences, each essential: definition, returned elements, and usage context. Front-loaded with key information, no fluff. Efficiently conveys all necessary 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 no output schema, the description appropriately lists returned chart components. Covers use cases and location behavior. For a complex tool with 8 parameters, the description is complete and actionable.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions including examples and explanations. The tool-level description reinforces location sensitivity but does not add significant meaning beyond the rich schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 casts a solar return chart for one subject and year, explaining the astronomical basis (transiting Sun returns to natal longitude). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on this specific annual forecasting technique, using specific verbs like 'Cast' and 'Returns'.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: 'built for year-ahead forecast tools, birthday charts, and annual horoscope features.' Explains location-sensitive usage (birthplace vs. current city). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.

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 carries full burden. It discloses clamping to 90 days, event capping, and significance scoring, which are important behavioral traits. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but the core behaviors are 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?

The description is a single paragraph that is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. It is concise but could be slightly more compact. It earns a 4.

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 complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description explains merging, clamping, and filtering, but does not describe the return format or event structure. This gap lowers the score.

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 the schema already provides detailed explanations. The description adds context about merging domains and single subject, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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's purpose: building a time-ordered forecast merging events from three specified domains (western, vedic, biorhythm). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing merging and ordering, and the title explicitly lists the event types.

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 it is 'built for what-is-coming dashboards, daily and weekly forecast feeds, and timing tools', providing use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to siblings like post_forecast_transits.

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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that events are time-ordered and significance-scored, and the window is up to 90 days. It does not cover authorization or side effects, but for a read-only forecast tool, these are not critical. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 core action, and every phrase adds value. No redundant information or fluff. Excellent structure for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns and its intended use. It could mention pagination or error handling, but for a forecasting tool, the level of detail is adequate and functional.

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% at the parameter level, so the description is not required to add param details. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters but explains how they contribute to the overall forecast. This meets the baseline expectation for full schema coverage.

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 precisely identifies the tool's function: forecasting western astrology events (aspects, ingresses, stations, eclipses, moon phases) for a single birth chart over up to 90 days. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact event types and mentions 'birth chart' which is unique among sibling tools.

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 states the tool is 'Built for astrology forecast feeds, transit alerts, and timing tools,' providing clear intended use cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or directly compare to siblings, though the context implies it is for detailed transit events rather than digest or significant dates.

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