Return archetype, rulership, exaltation/detriment/fall, and keywords for a planet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planet | Yes | Planet name, e.g. 'Mars' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Return' is consistent. The description adds the specific list of returned attributes (archetype, rulership, etc.), which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error conditions or data availability.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and lists the specific return items. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail or repetition.
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 simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the description already enumerating return contents, the description is sufficiently complete 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?
The schema fully describes the only parameter 'planet' with an example ('Mars'), and the description does not add further parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the 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 states the tool's function: 'Return archetype, rulership, exaltation/detriment/fall, and keywords for a planet.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'planet' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle other astrological entities (e.g., get_house, get_sign).
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 planet-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_house or get_sign. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct astrological function: reference lookups (sign, planet, house, aspect), chart calculations (birth_chart, planetary_positions), transit analysis (current_transits, transit_search), progression, calendar generation, and prompt management. Even similar tools like current_transits and transit_search are clearly differentiated by scope (current vs. period-based).
Naming is largely lowercase_snake_case but inconsistent in verb usage: get_* for reference lookups, while others are noun phrases (birth_chart, planetary_positions) or arbitrary verbs (generate_calendar_events). The pattern is readable but not uniform across the set.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy, and the count feels balanced for an astrology API.
The tool surface covers the core astrological workflow: reference data (signs, planets, houses, aspects), chart generation (birth, positions), transits, progressions, and calendar events. The inclusion of prompt tools also supports interpretation, leaving no obvious dead ends.