Skip to main content
Glama

AstroWay Applied readings

Career Money Style

astroway_financial_career_money_style
Read-onlyIdempotent

Income / earning archetype by sign.

[Group: Financial Astrology] [Endpoint: POST /v1/financial/career-money-style] [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNo
dateYes
nameNo
timeYes
fieldsNoCompact mode: comma-separated dotted paths to keep, relative to `data`, e.g. "planets.name,planets.longitude,houses.cusp". Omit for the whole response.
ayanamsaNoSidereal school by name. Lahiri when omitted. Equivalent to ayanamsaId; send either.
latitudeYes
timezoneNoIANA zone name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto to look the zone up from latitude and longitude. The server takes the offset that zone kept at this local date and time, summer time included, and uses it in place of timezoneOffset. A clock time that happened twice takes the first occurrence; one skipped when clocks went forward takes the offset from before the change. Abbreviations such as EST are refused. Before 1970 the tz database is not reliable for every place, so send timezoneOffset when the local clock is known.
cosmogramNo
longitudeYes
precisionNoCompact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
ayanamsaIdNo
zodiacTypeNo
houseSystemNoP
timezoneOffsetNoHours from UTC at the given moment, not minutes. Fractional zones are hours too: 5.5 for India, 5.75 for Nepal, -3.5 for Newfoundland. Defaults to 0, meaning UTC. Ignored when timezone is sent.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
careerMoneyStyleNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / ayanamsaId / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "number"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ayanamsaId / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "number",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / careerMoneyStyle / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / careerMoneyStyle / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema facts: the HTTP endpoint and the charge of 10 credits at Tier 1, which matters for cost-aware planning. It says nothing about what the calculation is based on (sign alone? full chart?) or how large the response is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loads the one substantive sentence, but the bracketed metadata block consumes most of the text and the single descriptive line is under-specified rather than efficient. Nothing is padded, but little of it earns its place as guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What is missing is proportionate: with 15 parameters and several astrological configuration knobs, the description should indicate defaults and whether the result is sign-based or chart-based, but the presence of an output schema keeps this from being a severe gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The [Required: date, time, latitude, longitude] line merely restates the schema's required array, so it adds no meaning. With only 33% schema coverage across 15 parameters, the undescribed ones (zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, city, name) go unexplained in both places, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Income / earning archetype by sign" names the artifact produced but supplies no verb and never states that it computes a natal-chart-derived money style. Against a dense cluster of financial siblings (spending_style, investor_archetype, wealth_house, savings_tips, risk_tolerance) it gives no cue for choosing this one rather than another.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any sibling alternative, despite at least five closely related financial tools. The only routing help is an implicit one: it needs a birth date/time/place, which hints at a natal-chart input, but the agent must infer that.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources