I Ching MCP Server by RoxyAPI

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the casting method, line values (6-9), changing lines, return components, and reproducibility via seed. It also explains the compact parameter's lossless token optimization.

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 efficiently conveys purpose, method, outputs, and optional parameters without redundant or unnecessary sentences.

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 no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It could be slightly more specific about the return structure, but it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 three parameters are explained with added value beyond the schema: lang includes fallback behavior, seed explains reproducibility, compact details columnar encoding and token savings. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 defines the tool's purpose: generating an authentic I-Ching reading using a three-coin casting method. It explains the output (primary hexagram, changing lines, resulting hexagram) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_iching_hexagrams by focusing on the casting process.

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 use ('divination apps, oracle features, decision-making tools'), but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ordering and content but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as response size limits (though limit parameter exists), error handling, or that it is a read-only operation. Adding a note about being safe and idempotent would improve 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action (browse list). Provides context on ordering and significance without unnecessary words. 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?

With 100% schema coverage and no required parameters, the description gives enough context for the tool's purpose and output content. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (despite having limit/offset parameters) and does not explain the structure of returned hexagram objects. An output schema is absent, so the description could compensate by noting the fields returned.

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 fully documents the parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the output content. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 lists all 64 I-Ching hexagrams with specific content (Chinese names, English translations, trigram compositions) and ordering (King Wen sequence). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_iching_hexagrams_lookup or get_iching_hexagrams_number by being a general browse list.

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 all hexagrams but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_iching_hexagrams_lookup or get_iching_hexagrams_random. No exclusions or context for 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes input format and direction (bottom to top) and gives examples of output. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or error behavior. The examples imply a lookup, but more explicit behavioral traits would improve 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and example. No unnecessary 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 absence of an output schema, the description provides example outputs (Hexagrams 1 and 2) and hints at the return format. It covers the input and use case well. However, it does not detail what fields are returned (e.g., name, meaning), which would enhance completeness. Still, it is adequate for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds meaning to the 'lines' parameter by explaining the binary pattern (0=yin, 1=yang) and the bottom-to-top order, which exceeds the schema's pattern and example. The compact parameter is not repeated, but the description focuses on the key parameter, adding 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 'Find an I-Ching hexagram by its binary line pattern,' specifying the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from siblings like get_iching_hexagrams (list all) and get_iching_hexagrams_number (by number) by focusing on line pattern input.

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: 'for custom divination interfaces where users input their own line configurations, or to find hexagrams matching specific trigram combinations.' It provides examples but does not explicitly exclude alternatives, though 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details what is returned (Chinese name, English translation, judgment, etc.) and parameter constraints. It does not mention side effects but is read-only. Could add that it is non-destructive.

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, front-loaded with purpose and range, then return details and usage. No redundant 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?

No output schema, but description fully enumerates return fields. Use case is clear. Given tool simplicity (single hexagram retrieval), description is 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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds context like 'King Wen sequence number' and use case, but does not add significant new meaning 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 it retrieves complete I-Ching hexagram details by King Wen sequence number, and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., random, list).

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 advises use after casting or for educational reference, implying when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives, but context from sibling tools provides clear differentiation.

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 fully explains the output: 'Returns complete hexagram data including judgment, image, interpretations for love/career/decisions, and all six changing line meanings.' This is a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description implies no side effects. A 5 would require noting any limitations or concurrency issues, but it's still strong.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and contents; second details the return data. 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 adequately lists return elements (judgment, image, interpretations, changing lines). For a random selection tool with only two optional parameters, this covers the essential information. Could mention error handling or hexagram count, but it's not critical.

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 description does not need to add much. It does not elaborate on lang or compact beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no extra meaning is added.

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 random I-Ching hexagram with full interpretation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_iching_hexagrams (likely list/query) by emphasizing randomness. The verb 'Receive' and resource are specific, and use cases are mentioned.

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 suggests when to use the tool ('Perfect for daily oracle features, meditation prompts, or exploring the Book of Changes') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_iching_cast. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 accurately describes a read-only retrieval of all trigrams, with no side effects. Though it doesn't detail parameter effects, the schema covers them. No contradictions.

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 plus a list of trigrams. The list is informative but slightly verbose for an AI agent. Overall, it's reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core 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?

No output schema, but description explains what trigrams are and their role, making the expected output clear. It doesn't mention that it returns a list, but that's implied. Adequate for a simple 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (lang, compact). It focusses on trigram content rather than how parameters affect output.

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 retrieves all 8 trigrams, lists them, and explains their role as building blocks of hexagrams. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_iching_hexagrams) by focusing specifically on trigrams.

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?

Implicitly guides when to use (when you need trigram information), but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to sibling tools like get_iching_trigrams_id. The description does not help an agent decide between this and similar 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 fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns complete trigram information including Chinese name, pinyin, and symbolic meaning. It implies a safe read operation without side effects. Could be improved by noting any prerequisites or id validation, 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details, then usage tip. Every sentence adds value without 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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (complete trigram info) and is sufficient. No gaps identified.

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 description adds significant value: it explains that id can be number or English name, lists all names, describes lang defaults and the compact parameter's token-saving optimization. This goes beyond the schema's technical 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 'Retrieve a specific I-Ching trigram by its number or name' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_iching_trigrams (which likely lists all) by focusing on a single trigram retrieval.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand the component trigrams of any hexagram.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_iching_trigrams.

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 seeded randomness behavior, reproducibility guarantees, and output contents (judgment, image, interpretations). It does not explicitly state side effects (likely none) or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied. The description is fair but could explicitly note it is safe/non-destructive.

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, with four sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide essential details. Every sentence adds value: purpose, reproducibility, use cases, and output contents. No redundant or 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (hexagram with judgment, image, interpretations for various domains). All four parameters are described in the schema, and the description covers the core behavior. For a tool of moderate complexity, this is 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context beyond the schema, such as explaining 'same seed + same date = same hexagram' and use cases for each parameter (e.g., date for past/future readings). The compact parameter is explained in the schema, not repeated in the description, but overall the description adds meaningful value.

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 receives a daily I-Ching hexagram for guidance, and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing seeded randomness and daily use. It specifies the resource (daily hexagram) and verb (receive/get), 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 provides clear usage context, mentioning perfect fits like 'Hexagram of the Day' features in oracle apps, meditation platforms, and daily wisdom tools. It explains when to use the seed parameter for reproducibility. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., for non-daily or detailed readings), which would strengthen 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool provides line values (6-9), changing line positions, and resulting hexagram if transformation occurs, along with deterministic seeding. It does not discuss side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-like tool, these omissions are acceptable.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: one for purpose and method, one for features and use case. No fluff or redundancy, and key information is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from siblings. No obvious gaps for its intended 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-documented. The description reinforces the seed's determinism but does not add significant new 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 the action ('Cast'), the resource ('complete daily I-Ching reading'), and the method ('traditional three-coin method with seeded randomness'). It distinguishes from the 'simple daily hexagram', likely a sibling tool, 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 provides usage context: it is 'Perfect for I-Ching divination apps requiring authentic oracle experience with daily consistency' and contrasts with a simpler alternative. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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