Return qualities, themes, shadow, crystals, and element for a zodiac sign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sign | Yes | Zodiac sign name, e.g. 'Aries' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact data returned (qualities, themes, shadow, crystals, element), which is not derivable from the annotations or parameter schema. There is no contradiction; it accurately describes a read operation.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently packs all necessary information without redundancy. Every phrase ('qualities, themes, shadow, crystals, and element') earns its place and adds 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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided, annotations present), the description fully covers the purpose and return content. There is no missing operational detail, and the output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description is sufficiently 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% and the only parameter 'sign' is already fully described in the schema as a zodiac sign name with an example. The description reiterates 'zodiac sign' but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Return' and the resource 'a zodiac sign', and enumerates the specific data (qualities, themes, shadow, crystals, element). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_planet or get_house which target different astrological resources.
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 clearly communicates the tool's scope: it returns a defined set of attributes for a zodiac sign. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling names (get_planet, get_house, birth_chart) make it obvious this is the go-to tool for sign-specific attributes, so the context is clear without needing explicit negatives.
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.