Today's universal sky: which planets are retrograde right now, the current moon phase and illumination, geocentric positions for 13 bodies (zodiac sign + Energy Blueprint gate/line), and a 30-day forward scan of retrograde stations and new/full moons. No input. Deterministic astronomy (JPL-validated ephemeris). Costs 1 call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: 'No input', 'Deterministic astronomy (JPL-validated ephemeris)', and 'Costs 1 call'. It is transparent about being read-only and predictable.
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?
Three sentences with front-loaded content: first sentence summarizes output, second confirms no input, third provides credibility and cost. Every sentence is valuable and concise.
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?
Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values: retrograde planets, moon phase, positions for 13 bodies (zodiac + gate/line), and 30-day forward scan. Complete for a no-parameter 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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info and appropriately states there is no input.
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 explicitly states it provides 'Today's universal sky' with specific data: retrograde planets, moon phase, geocentric positions for 13 bodies, and a forward scan. The verb is implicit but clear, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'sky_personal' by specifying 'universal' sky.
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 clearly indicates 'No input' and mentions cost, implying it's for quick, deterministic sky overview. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'sky_personal', but the context suggests when to use it.
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.