I Ching MCP Server by RoxyAPI

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It explains the coin casting method (three coins, values 6-9), the concept of changing lines, and the output structure. It also mentions optional reproducibility via seed. It does not discuss authentication or side effects, but for a read-only oracle tool, this is sufficient.

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 main action, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is efficiently structured 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values comprehensively: primary hexagram with interpretation, line values, and resulting hexagram if lines change. It also covers the seed parameter. For a single-cast tool, it is complete and covers all necessary aspects.

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 value by explaining the 'seed' parameter in detail: 'Same seed = same casting every time' and gives examples. The 'lang' parameter is not mentioned in the description but is well-documented in the schema. Overall, the description enhances 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 clearly states the tool generates an authentic I-Ching reading using the three-coin casting method. It specifies the output includes primary hexagram with interpretation, line values, and resulting hexagram if lines change. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_iching_hexagrams (list hexagrams) or get_iching_hexagrams_random (random hexagram without interpretation).

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 it is 'Perfect for divination apps, oracle features, and decision-making tools,' providing a clear use context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (King Wen sequence) and content (names, translations, trigrams) but does not mention pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters) or response structure. The description adds some context beyond a bare listing but lacks complete transparency.

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 mostly concise with two informative sentences. The third sentence adds philosophical context that is somewhat extraneous for tool usage. Overall, it is efficient but 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 no output schema, the description should describe response structure. It mentions specific fields returned (Chinese names, English translations, trigram compositions), which is helpful. However, it does not clarify that results are paginated (limit/offset in schema) or describe the overall response format. Missing pagination context makes it incomplete for a complex listing 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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters. 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 verb 'browse' and resource 'all 64 I-Ching hexagrams', specifying unique characteristics: Chinese names, English translations, trigram compositions, and King Wen ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iching_hexagrams_lookup or get_iching_hexagrams_number.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to browse the full list of hexagrams. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, though the context is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.

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 description carries full burden. It explains the operation and gives examples, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, idempotent operation or what the response contains beyond the example.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Lacks output schema, and while examples hint at return values, the description does not specify the full response structure or error handling. Acceptable for a simple lookup but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the binary representation (yin/yang) and bottom-to-top order, and provides examples. This is useful context not present 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 'Find an I-Ching hexagram by its binary line pattern,' specifying the verb, resource, and distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_iching_hexagrams_number or get_iching_hexagrams_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?

Explicitly mentions use cases: 'custom divination interfaces' and 'matching specific trigram combinations.' While it does not list when not to use it, the context of sibling tools implies alternatives.

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 the return content and valid number range but does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 states the purpose, and the second lists contents and usage. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively lists what is returned: Chinese name, English translation, judgment, image, modern interpretations for four areas, and changing line meanings. It also gives usage context. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or additional metadata.

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%, and the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by noting that languages without translations return English, but this is minor. Overall, the description adds little 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 retrieves complete I-Ching hexagram details by King Wen sequence number. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the identifier (number) and listing what is returned.

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: 'Use this to display detailed hexagram information after casting or for educational reference.' However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool versus 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?

Without annotations, the description discloses that it returns complete hexagram data including judgment, image, interpretations, and changing line meanings. It also notes language fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or stateless.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides use cases and output details. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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 adequately explains the return data. Only one optional parameter. However, it could briefly mention that results are stateless and random per call, but this is a minor gap.

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 coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's details for the 'lang' parameter. It merely restates the enum and default. 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 'Receive a random I-Ching hexagram with full interpretation,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_iching_hexagrams' and 'get_iching_hexagrams_lookup' by emphasizing randomness.

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 perfect for 'daily oracle features, meditation prompts, or exploring the Book of Changes,' implying use cases but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many sibling 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 clearly states it retrieves all trigrams and lists them. The behavior is straightforward and safe (read-only), with no side effects or contradictions. The description adds context about the trigrams' significance, which aids 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 concise (4 sentences), front-loads the purpose, and provides relevant context about trigrams and their role without any 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 simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (list of trigrams with names and elements) and their meaning. No missing information.

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 the single parameter 'lang', and the schema already describes it well. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what is in 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 retrieves all 8 trigrams (bagua), lists them by name and elemental association, and explains their role in hexagrams. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_iching_trigrams_id (specific trigram) and get_iching_hexagrams (hexagrams).

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 explains that understanding trigrams is essential for interpreting hexagram meanings, implying it's a prerequisite tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_iching_trigrams_id or get_iching_hexagrams, nor does it provide when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (Chinese name, pinyin, element associations, etc.) but does not mention behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or prerequisites. It partially covers transparency but misses some aspects.

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. It front-loads the purpose and immediately lists what is returned. Highly concise and 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?

The tool is a simple lookup. Despite lack of output schema, the description itemizes return content. Parameters are well-documented in schema. Given low complexity, the description is complete and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema description for the id parameter but does not add new insights. The lang parameter is already well-documented by the schema. No additional value 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 'Retrieve a specific I-Ching trigram by its number or English name', specifying the verb (retrieve), resource (trigram), and input criteria. It lists all valid trigram names, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_iching_trigrams (likely list all).

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 context: 'Use this to understand the component trigrams of any hexagram.' This implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like get_iching_trigrams for listing all trigrams. Still, the guidance is clear and helpful.

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 the seeded randomness mechanism, default date behavior, and language fallback. It lacks details on rate limits or authentication, but these are not critical for this 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 concise, fitting in a single paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and then provides details. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description specifies the return content: 'Returns the hexagram with judgment, image, and interpretations for love, career, decisions, and practical advice.' It covers all relevant aspects of the tool's behavior and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-described. The tool description adds value by explaining the use-case context for parameters (e.g., 'seeded randomness', 'anonymous daily readings'), enhancing understanding 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: 'Receive a daily I-Ching hexagram for guidance and reflection.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing daily, seeded randomness and specific use cases like 'Hexagram of the Day' features, which differentiates it from other I-Ching 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'perfect for oracle apps, meditation platforms, and daily wisdom tools.' It explains the deterministic behavior but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other 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 provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses seeded randomness, deterministic behavior, and traditional method. Does not mention error handling or side effects, but adequately describes core behavioral traits for a casting 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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and key differentiator. Every sentence adds value.

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 and no annotations, description explains what the tool returns (line values, changing lines, resulting hexagram). Missing details on exact output structure, but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and deterministic nature. Reasonably complete for the complexity.

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%, and description adds valuable context beyond schema: explains seed's role for reproducibility, date defaults to today, and lang fallback logic. Adds meaning beyond the schema examples and 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?

Description clearly states it casts a complete daily I-Ching reading using the three-coin method with seeded randomness. It distinguishes from simpler siblings like post_iching_daily by emphasizing the full casting experience with line values, changing lines, and transformation 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?

Explicitly contrasts with the simple daily hexagram and states reproducibility condition ('Same seed + same date = same casting result'). Could include when not to use, but provides clear context for selection.

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