Numerology profile from a birth date (UTC): Pythagorean life path (master numbers 11/22/33 preserved), birthday number, personal year/month/day cycles, and tarot birth card. Time fields are accepted but only the date matters. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that time fields are ignored, that master numbers are preserved in the life path calculation, and that it costs 1 call. No contradictions.
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 sentence that efficiently lists the outputs and key behavioral notes. No filler, front-loaded with 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main outputs, parameter relevance, and cost. It lacks error handling or specifics on tarot birth card format, but is adequate for a simple tool.
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 only 33% (year and hour described). The description adds that hour/minute/second are accepted but ignored, which clarifies their meaning. Day and month have no description in schema or description, leaving some gaps. The description partially compensates for low 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?
The description states it provides a numerology profile from a birth date, listing specific components (Pythagorean life path, birthday number, personal cycles, tarot birth card). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bodygraph' or 'ephemeris' which are different divinatory systems.
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 explicitly notes that time fields are accepted but only the date matters, guiding the agent on irrelevant parameters. It also mentions cost. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but context with siblings makes it clear.
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.