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 the full burden. It describes the tool as rolling up data into windows and returning structured summaries, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. It lacks explicit statement of safety (e.g., read-only), but the description's language and context are transparent enough.

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 focused paragraph that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is not overly verbose and front-loads key information, achieving conciseness without losing clarity.

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 with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description explains the overall behavior and the four windows' content. However, it lacks explicit details about the response format or field names, which would improve completeness for an AI agent.

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 all parameters documented. The description adds overall context about the windows and output but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning 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 it rolls forecast data into four pre-summarized windows with specific counts and top events. It uses active verb 'roll' and specifies the output structure, distinguishing it from sibling forecast tools as a glanceable summary.

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 says it is 'built for a glanceable what-is-coming strip' implying when to use it for highlights without scanning full event list. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or reference alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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 discloses that the tool defaults to a significance floor of 70, lists the types of events considered 'genuine turning points', and implies a read-only operation. This is sufficient for behavioral understanding.

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-loading the key result (high-significance dates) and then providing defaults and use cases. No extraneous text.

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 covers purpose, event types, defaults, and intended usage. With no output schema, the agent lacks information about the return structure, but given the tool's simplicity (filtered list of dates), the description is mostly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the significance floor default and the domain weighting logic (e.g., 'Bias which domains survive filtering'), enriching param understanding beyond 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 it returns only high-significance dates from a merged cross-domain forecast for a single birth subject, listing specific event types (outer-planet aspects, sign ingresses, retrograde stations, dasha changes). This specificity and the title 'Significant dates' distinguish it from sibling tools like post_forecast_timeline or post_forecast_transits.

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 indicates it is 'built for what-is-coming highlights, timing alerts, and at-a-glance forecast strips', implying a use case for summarized highlights rather than full details. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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 covers key behaviors: returns 'full tropical chart with planetary positions, house cusps, aspects, Ascendant, and Midheaven', location sensitivity, compact mode for token optimization, and timezone handling. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits but sufficiently discloses output and edge cases.

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 of five sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the chart is, output contents, location sensitivity, compact mode, and timezone handling. It is complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as the concept of solar return, location sensitivity, and the trade-off of compact mode. This helps the agent understand the purpose of parameters like latitude/longitude and compact.

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 'Cast the solar return chart' for 'annual astrological forecasting', specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transits or timelines by focusing on the single-subject birthday chart.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'Built for year-ahead forecast tools, birthday charts, and annual horoscope features.' It also provides guidance on location sensitivity (birthplace vs. current city), though it doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases or compare to 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?

The description discloses two important behavioral traits: the forecast window is 'clamped to 90 days' and events are 'capped and scored by significance.' However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or performance implications. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 long, starting with the core purpose and then detailing domains and constraints. It is mostly concise without redundant information, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of what the tool does and its constraints. However, it lacks information about the output structure, error conditions, and when to prefer this over sibling tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds context by mentioning the domain mergers and clamping, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as building a time-ordered forecast for a single birth subject merging three domains (western, vedic, biorhythm). It uses specific verbs ('build', 'merging') and lists the types of events included, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual domains.

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 what-is-coming dashboards, daily and weekly forecast feeds, and timing tools,' providing clear use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools like post_forecast_transits or post_forecast_significant_dates.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a 'time-ordered, significance-scored timeline' and limits the window to 90 days. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but as a forecast tool, it is inherently read-only and non-destructive. The description is sufficiently transparent about behavior.

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 one well-structured sentence with a colon to separate the main action from the list of events. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause earns its place. No wasted words.

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 has 6 parameters (only 1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality, return value (timeline), and constraints (90 days). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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 tool description adds context for parameters indirectly (e.g., 'window up to 90 days' relates to startDate/endDate), but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which are already detailed. No extra value that significantly improves parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Forecast the western astrology events for a single birth chart over a window up to 90 days' and enumerates all event types: aspects, ingresses, stations, eclipses, moon phases. This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear scope, distinguishing it from siblings like post_forecast_digest or 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 says 'Built for astrology forecast feeds, transit alerts, and timing tools', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply different forecasts (digest, significant dates, solar return, timeline) and the description's specificity about transit events helps agents choose correctly.

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