Deterministic BaZi compatibility score (0–100) and band between two people, from combined five-element balance and Day Master cycle relation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person_a | Yes | {year,month,day,hour,gender} | |
| person_b | Yes | {year,month,day,hour,gender} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is 'deterministic' and explains the computation basis, but does not cover error conditions, authentication needs, or output structure beyond score and band. This is a moderate disclosure.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and methodology. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 or annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's output (score and band) and logic. However, it omits details about the band interpretation, input validation, and return format. It is nearly complete but leaves minor gaps.
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% with descriptions for person_a and person_b as '{year,month,day,hour,gender}'. The description adds only that these are for two people, without specifying format or constraints. It adds little meaning beyond the schema, thus 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 computes a BaZi compatibility score (0–100) and band between two people, using five-element balance and Day Master cycle relation. It specifies the verb (compatibility), resource (BaZi), and output, distinguishing it from the sibling bazi_chart.
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 use for compatibility assessment but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling bazi_chart. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: bazi_chart computes a single person's chart, while bazi_compatibility evaluates compatibility between two people. No overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent 'bazi_' prefix with underscore-separated descriptive nouns (chart, compatibility), forming a clear and predictable naming pattern.
With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin for a full 'Four Pillars' server, though it covers core chart computation and compatibility. A typical server of this scope might include 3-5 tools.
The server lacks tools for interpreting the chart, analyzing element relationships, or providing detailed profiles beyond the raw chart and a compatibility score. This leaves significant gaps in the expected lifecycle.