AstroWay Core astrology

Weekly Horoscope

astroway_horoscope_weekly

Read-onlyIdempotent

Weekly horoscope for a zodiac sign: the same shape as the daily one, with the week's ingresses, stations and lunar phases in events and in the text.

[Group: Horoscope] [Endpoint: POST /v1/horoscope/weekly] [Required: sign] [Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No
`sign`	Yes
`style`	No	`astro` (default) names the planets, houses and aspects behind each point. `plain` uses everyday words with no astrological terms, and is written once in English and translated, so every language says the same thing. Daily, weekly and monthly.
`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.
`length`	No	With `style: "plain"`: `short` (about 70-110 words a day) or `medium` (default, about 150-230).
`topics`	No	Only these sections, in this order, in `sections` and in `horoscope`. Default all six.
`language`	No
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.
`disclaimer_inline`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`title`	No
`weekEnd`	No
`language`	No
`weekStart`	No
`keyTransits`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / length

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With `style: \"plain\"`: `short` (about 70-110 words a day) or `medium` (default, about 150-230).",
+  "enum": [
+    "short",
+    "medium"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / style

Added value: +{
+  "description": "`astro` (default) names the planets, houses and aspects behind each point. `plain` uses everyday words with no astrological terms, and is written once in English and translated, so every language says the same thing. Daily, weekly and monthly.",
+  "enum": [
+    "astro",
+    "plain"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / topics

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only these sections, in this order, in `sections` and in `horoscope`. Default all six.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "overview",
+      "love",
+      "career",
+      "health",
+      "finance",
+      "advice"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 6,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world), so the bar is low, yet the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: cost (50 credits, Tier 3), endpoint, and the required `sign`. It omits things like rate limits or pagination, but the cost and endpoint metadata are real value-adds.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) cleanly bracketed. No filler text; every line carries information, though the bracket block is a little terse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is modest, but with 9 params and only 56% schema description coverage, several inputs remain entirely unexplained. Reference to the daily tool for response shape partially compensates but is not enough for a complex tool.

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?

Only 'sign' is called out, which is already declared in the required array, so it adds nothing. Schema coverage is a middling 56%, leaving params like `date`, `language`, and `disclaimer_inline` undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Weekly horoscope for a zodiac sign') and implies scope through 'the week's ingresses, stations and lunar phases', which distinguishes it from the daily sibling it references. It does not spell out the daily/monthly/yearly distinction beyond the timeframe note, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or explicit alternative is given. The 'same shape as the daily one' remark is a shape hint, not routing guidance, so an agent gets no help choosing weekly vs monthly/yearly siblings.

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

All AstroWay Core astrology 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?