Planetary positions for any date (defaults to now UTC).
Returns positions for Sun through Pluto plus Chiron and four major asteroids, with longitude, sign, speed, and retrograde status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | ||
| hour | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| month | No | ||
| minute | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 default timezone, the set of celestial bodies, and the output attributes. Yet it does not explain how partial date parameters are resolved (e.g., if only day is given) or potential error handling, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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: the first summarizes the tool's function and default behavior, the second details the return payload. Every phrase earns its place, 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but the description still does. However, the lack of parameter interaction details and usage alternatives leaves the description only partially complete for a date-query tool, especially given its role among many sibling tools.
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 0%, and the description only says 'any date' while providing no per-parameter explanation. It does not describe that year, month, day, hour, minute combine to form a date, nor interpret the null/default behavior beyond a vague 'defaults to now UTC'. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of detailed parameter information.
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 specifies the exact resource (planetary positions) and scope (Sun through Pluto plus Chiron and four major asteroids), with specific fields returned (longitude, sign, speed, retrograde status). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like birth_chart or get_planet by focusing on a date-based positional lookup.
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 phrase 'for any date' establishes the primary use case, and 'defaults to now UTC' adds a clear fallback. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like current_transits or get_planet, so it misses the 'exclusions' criteria.
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.