Raw geocentric ecliptic positions for any instant (UTC): 13 bodies (Sun through Pluto, Chiron, lunar nodes) with longitude and retrograde flags. JPL-validated ephemeris (Meeus + Standish 1992). Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| hour | Yes | Hour 0-23 in UTC | |
| year | Yes | 4-digit year (UTC) | |
| month | Yes | ||
| minute | Yes | ||
| second | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses key traits (13 bodies, longitude, retrograde flags, JPL validation, cost of 1 call). However, with no annotations, it lacks details on idempotency, authentication, or side effects. For a read-only calculation tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. However, the description could include more detail without becoming verbose. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 tool with no output schema, the description partially explains return values (positions with longitude and retrograde flags) but omits format details. Given the simple input and clear purpose, it is moderately complete but lacks explicit output structure.
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 33%, but description adds no parameter-level detail. It mentions 'any instant (UTC)' but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states it returns geocentric ecliptic positions for 13 celestial bodies, including longitude and retrograde flags. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools (bodygraph, numerology, etc.) which are different astrological services.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or compare to sibling tools. Users must infer from 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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of mystical/astrological computation: human design chart, raw ephemeris, numerology, relationship composite, personal natal sky, and current sky overview. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Tool names are single words or underscore-separated compounds (e.g., bodygraph, sky_personal), all lowercase and noun-like. While there's no verb_noun pattern, the naming is consistent in style and descriptive.
Six tools cover the core functionalities of a mystical API without being too few or too many. Each tool has a clear role, making the set well-scoped.
The tool set covers human design, ephemeris, numerology, relationships, and sky charts. Missing interpretive features like transit readings or detailed compatibility analysis, but core computation is present.