AstroWay Applied readings

Biorhythm Compatibility

astroway_wellness_biorhythm_compatibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

How closely two people's 23, 28 and 33-day cycles run together: per cycle the phase offset in days and 50 x (1 + cos(2 pi x offset / period)), and their mean. The offset is set at birth, so the figure never changes. A historical model with no evidential support, returned with that disclaimer.

[Group: Wellness] [Endpoint: POST /v1/wellness/biorhythm/compatibility] [Required: birthDateA, birthDateB] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "birthDateA": "<birthDateA>",
      "birthDateB": "<birthDateB>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_wellness_biorhythm_compatibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Compact mode: comma-separated dotted paths to keep, relative to `data`, e.g. "planets.name,planets.longitude,houses.cusp". Omit for the whole response.
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
`birthDateA`	Yes
`birthDateB`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cycles`	No
`formula`	No
`daysApart`	No
`birthDateA`	No
`birthDateB`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`overallPercent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the burden is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: the result is birth-fixed and never changes (reinforcing idempotency), the model is historically grounded but has no evidential support, and the disclaimer is returned with the result. The 10-credit Tier 1 cost is also surfaced. What is missing is any statement about rate limits or how the score should be presented.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core sentence is front-loaded and dense with genuine information, and the disclaimer plus metadata block are cleanly separated. The explicit cosine formula is arguably more than an agent needs when an output schema exists, but it does define the score's scale and is not padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the essentials: inputs, computed quantities, the static nature of the result, the model's credibility disclaimer, and cost. The only gap left is that it never clarifies that birth dates alone suffice (no birth time or location), which matters for an astrology-adjacent API.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: 'fields' and 'precision' are documented in the schema, while birthDateA and birthDateB are described only by a YYYY-MM-DD pattern. The description restates which inputs are required but adds no semantic detail — e.g. that only dates (not times or places) are needed, or that the two dates are treated symmetrically. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific computation — the phase offset and the 50 x (1 + cos(...)) score per 23/28/33-day cycle plus a mean — so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces, and it is clearly a two-person (compatibility) variant rather than the single-person astroway_wellness_biorhythm. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the relational compatibility tools, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Use is implied by the wording ('two people's cycles') and the required-parameters note, and the description usefully warns that the figure is static and never changes, which tells an agent not to call it repeatedly. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for either the single-person biorhythm or the other compatibility scores.

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

All AstroWay Applied readings tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?