Numerology MCP (Pythagorean)

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions computing compatibility but does not disclose what the output looks like, error handling, or any behavioral constraints beyond the number range.

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 with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context. It could be improved by hinting at the return format, but it is largely complete for its complexity level.

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 input schema has two integer parameters with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying they are Life Path numbers and restricting the valid range (1–9 or master numbers), adding meaningful context 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 the tool computes numerology compatibility between two Life Path numbers with a specific range (1–9 or master numbers 11/22/33). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like life_path or name_numbers.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied but not clarified with exclusions or comparisons.

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 partially discloses behavior: it computes a reduced number with trail and meaning. However, it lacks details on input validation, output structure, or potential side effects (e.g., pure computation).

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 extremely concise (14 words) and front-loaded, starting with the key output. Every word adds value with no 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 tool with 3 integer parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on input constraints and the exact nature of 'reduction trail and meaning'. Adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It relates parameters to 'birth date' but does not explain individual fields (day, month, year) or specify acceptable ranges/formats. Adds minimal 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 the tool computes the Life Path number from a birth date, including reduction trail and meaning. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like compatibility or name_numbers, which focus on different numerology aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for Life Path calculation but does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or refer to sibling 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool computes but does not describe validation (e.g., handling of invalid names), side effects, or output structure. The agent has no insight into error behavior or response format.

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, concise sentence of 14 words that front-loads the key functionality. It avoids unnecessary detail, though it could benefit from slight expansion for completeness.

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 and the existence of sibling tools, the description should explain return values and differentiate itself further. It mentions 'with meanings' but does not specify the output format (e.g., numbers, textual interpretations). The tool is incomplete for informed selection.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the input 'name' is used to compute numerology numbers, but lacks detail on required format (e.g., full name, case sensitivity, allowed characters). This is minimal but non-trivial 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 the tool computes three specific numerology numbers (Expression/Destiny, Soul Urge, Personality) from a name using the Pythagorean method, with meanings. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compatibility' and 'life_path' which likely focus on other numerology aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (compatibility, life_path, numerology_profile). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the name and brief description.

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 provides key behavioral traits: deterministic and no AI. However, it lacks details on input validation, response format, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., name format, date validity). It partially compensates with 'reduction trail' but is still incomplete.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose. While efficient, it packs many details (list of numbers) that could be clearer as a list. Still, every part earns its place with no 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lists outputs but not their structure or format. It does not address the role of targetYear or name sufficiently. Enough for a basic understanding but not fully actionable without additional context.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'name and birth date' linking to day, month, year, and implies targetYear for Personal Year. But it does not specify name format, that targetYear is optional, or the meaning of each parameter in detail, leaving gaps.

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 provides a 'Full deterministic Pythagorean numerology profile' and lists all specific components (Life Path, Expression/Destiny, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes from siblings like life_path or name_numbers by offering a comprehensive profile.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., compatibility, life_path, name_numbers). It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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