I Ching MCP Server by RoxyAPI

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: explains the casting mechanism (three coins, values 6-9), changing lines, and the return structure (primary hexagram, line values, resulting hexagram). This gives the agent a full picture of what will happen.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail about method, output, and seed. No fluff or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the key return elements (primary hexagram, line values, changing lines, resulting hexagram) and covers optional inputs fully. It is complete for a tool with no required parameters and straightforward behavior.

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% for all 3 parameters (lang, seed, compact), so the schema already documents them well. The description only reiterates the seed's reproducibility without adding new 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 function: 'Generate an authentic I-Ching reading using the traditional three-coin casting method.' This specific verb+resource+method distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on hexagram/trigram lookups.

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?

It provides clear context ('Perfect for divination apps, oracle features, and decision-making tools') but does not explicitly mention when to use alternative sibling tools, such as static hexagram lookups.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are ordered by the King Wen sequence and include specific content, which is useful context, though it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or language fallback (those are in schema).

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 sentences; first is direct and informative. Second sentence adds domain context but includes some fluff ('profound wisdom,' '3,000 years') that isn't essential for tool invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the returned content and ordering. Schema covers pagination and language. The tool is simple enough that the description plus schema are sufficient.

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?

All four parameters have complete schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain them. It adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3.

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 'Browse all 64 I-Ching hexagrams' and specifies the content (Chinese names, English translations, trigram compositions), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on lookup, number, or random.

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 browsing the full set, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling lookup, number, or random tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

Annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful context by explaining that 0 represents broken (yin) and 1 represents solid (yang) lines, and the bottom-to-top ordering. This aids correct usage without contradicting annotations.

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: purpose, usage context, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded, free of redundancy, and 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?

For a simple lookup tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation. It includes use cases and an output example, though it does not describe the full response shape (no output schema exists). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (lines, lang, compact) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the key 'lines' format with examples but does not significantly add 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 function: 'Find an I-Ching hexagram by its binary line pattern.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by defining the specific input method (line pattern) and provides examples, which solidifies understanding.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this for custom divination interfaces where users input their own line configurations, or to find hexagrams matching specific trigram combinations.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the specific data returned: Chinese name, English translation, judgment text, image text, modern interpretations for general situations, love, career, decision-making, and all six changing line meanings. This goes beyond the minimal and helps the agent set expectations for the response.

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 wasted words. The first sentence is action-oriented and specific about the resource. The second sentence gives a clear use case. Each sentence earns its place; it is concise and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 and only 3 parameters, the description provides a thorough picture of the tool's functionality and return content. It covers the primary use case, the key parameter range, and details of the response. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed enumeration of returned fields. Minor gaps like language fallback and compact shape are already in the schema, so they don't need repetition.

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%: the schema already fully documents 'number' (with min/max and King Wen sequence description), 'lang' (with enums and fallback behavior), and 'compact' (with lossless columnar shape and token savings). The description adds little beyond the schema, only repeating the number range in the opening sentence. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('complete I-Ching hexagram details') and the key parameter ('by King Wen sequence number (1-64)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iching_hexagrams_lookup (which likely searches by name) and get_iching_random (which returns a random hexagram).

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 when to use this tool: 'Use this to display detailed hexagram information after casting or for educational reference.' This provides clear context for appropriate use, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions. The 'after casting' hint aligns well with sibling tools like get_iching_cast and get_iching_random.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the output content (judgment, image, interpretations, changing lines) and highlights randomness, which is behaviorally relevant. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 action and returning data. Every sentence contributes purpose, use cases, and output details with 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description outlines the return content in sufficient detail for a simple tool with two optional parameters. It could go further by explaining randomness mechanics, but the core information is present and complete enough for effective invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (lang and compact), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles 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 'Receive a random I-Ching hexagram with full interpretation', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup or cast by emphasizing randomness, which is the core unique feature.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Perfect for daily oracle features, meditation prompts, or exploring the Book of Changes.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful domain context (trigrams as building blocks, three-line structure, names) but discloses no additional behavioral traits like response format, pagination, or language fallback behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 main action, and the additional educational content about trigrams helps the agent understand the output. No wasted words, though listing all eight names is slightly verbose yet still relevant.

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 simple list tool with zero required parameters and readonly annotations, the description provides sufficient domain context and lists the expected results. However, it does not describe the exact return structure, relying on the parameter schema to clarify behavior; overall it's complete enough for agent use.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions of 'lang' and 'compact'. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies as per the rubric.

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 'Retrieve all 8 I-Ching trigrams (bagua)' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates each trigram by name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iching_trigrams_id, which presumably targets a single trigram.

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 the tool is for retrieving all 8 trigrams as a foundational reference, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_iching_trigrams_id for a single trigram. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what the response contains (Chinese name, pinyin, element associations, core attributes, symbolic meaning), going beyond the basic read-only flag.

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 tight sentences: first states the action and target, second lists return contents, third gives a usage context. No fluff, fully front-loaded, 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?

For a simple, side-effect-free lookup tool with a rich schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter semantics (via schema), return content, and when to use it. No additional behavioral or edge-case information seems necessary.

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 documents all three parameters fully. The description reinforces the id format (number or English name) but does not add new meaning for 'lang' or 'compact' beyond what the schema provides. 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 retrieves a specific I-Ching trigram by number or English name, lists the valid names, and specifies what information is returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iching_trigrams (which likely lists all trigrams) by emphasizing the specific-trigram lookup scope.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to understand the component trigrams of any hexagram.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: seeded randomness ensuring same seed+date reproducibility, language fallback for missing translations, and the specific content returned (judgment, image, interpretations). No contradictions with annotations.

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 purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, determinism, and return content. No fluff or redundant repetition of schema details.

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, the description explains return values (judgment, image, interpretations for love, career, decisions, practical advice) and covers language fallback and deterministic behavior. This is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with strong annotations.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the seed/date determinism but does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema. It appropriately leaves details to the schema, matching the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool returns a daily I-Ching hexagram, specifying the resource (hexagram with judgment, image, interpretations). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing seeded randomness for deterministic daily results, positioning it for 'Hexagram of the Day' features.

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 gives clear usage context: 'perfect for Hexagram of the Day features in oracle apps, meditation platforms, and daily wisdom tools.' It implies deterministic daily readings but does not explicitly name alternative tools for random or cast-based readings, which limits exclusion 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: seeded randomness, determinism (same seed + same date = same result), inclusion of changing line positions, and resulting hexagram from transformation. No contradiction; 'cast' is a computation producing a reading, not a side-effecting mutation.

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, each earning its place: action and core value, differentiation from simpler alternative, and key reproducibility guarantee. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, uses no filler, and remains compact while conveying essential 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the primary outputs (line values, changing lines, transformation) and the use case. It does not detail the exact response shape, but the component list is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Slightly more detail about return format would elevate it, but it is already complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining that 'Same seed + same date = same casting result,' directly tying the seed and date parameters to reproducibility. This goes beyond the schema's already excellent per-parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Cast a complete daily I-Ching reading using the traditional three-coin method.' It enumerates distinct outputs (line values 6-9, changing line positions, resulting hexagram) and explicitly contrasts with the 'simple daily hexagram' sibling, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 'Unlike the simple daily hexagram, this provides the full casting experience' and targets 'I-Ching divination apps requiring authentic oracle experience with daily consistency.' This implies when to use this tool over simpler alternatives, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly or state when not to use it. Clear context, but exclusions are implicit.

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