Deterministic BaZi compatibility score (0–100) and band between two people, from combined five-element balance and Day Master cycle relation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| person_a | Yes | {year,month,day,hour,gender} | |
| person_b | Yes | {year,month,day,hour,gender} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool is 'Deterministic', implying no randomness, and explains the underlying logic. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a computation tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
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 conveys the core functionality and output. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no fluff.
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?
The description explains the output format (score and band) and the method, which is helpful without an output schema. However, it does not elaborate on input constraints (e.g., valid date ranges) or handle nested object complexity. Overall, it provides adequate but not exhaustive context.
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 description coverage is 100% because each property has a description, but those descriptions are minimal (just field names). The main description adds context about comparing 'two people'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the structure, but the description does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter formats.
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 clearly states the tool calculates a 'Deterministic BaZi compatibility score (0–100) and band' using specific methods ('five-element balance and Day Master cycle relation'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool bazi_chart by focusing on compatibility rather than chart generation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus bazi_chart or any other alternatives. The description implies use for comparing two people but does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one computes an individual's BaZi chart, the other calculates compatibility between two people. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent 'bazi_' prefix with snake_case and descriptive nouns ('chart' and 'compatibility'), forming a predictable pattern.
With only 2 tools, the server is narrowly scoped but still provides the core BaZi functionalities. The count is slightly below the typical 3-15 range but suits the focused purpose.
The server covers the essential BaZi operations: chart generation and compatibility calculation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed interpretation or advance forecasting), but the basic use cases are well-covered.