Calculate a group Penta analysis for a team of 3 to 5 people.
Plan: Standard or higher · Cost: 3 credits per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | ||
| birth_datetimes | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions cost, failing to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the call is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. For a computation tool, this is minimal but acceptable given the nature.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating plan and cost into the purpose sentence.
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?
An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values, but the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., birth time format) and error conditions. For a tool with limited parameters, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 0%, and the description does not explain that birth_datetimes should contain 3-5 date strings or clarify the format. The verbose parameter is not described at all. The description adds little beyond the schema.
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 'Penta analysis' for a team of 3-5 people, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_bodygraph (individual) and calculate_composite (different calculation type).
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 provides cost (3 credits) and plan requirement ('Standard or higher') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not 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 type of calculation (bodygraph, composite, dreamrave, penta, transit, location search) with no overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
Most tools follow a 'calculate_' pattern, but 'get_transit' and 'search_locations' break the pattern, introducing inconsistency. While the verbs are descriptive, the lack of uniformity may confuse agents.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a Human Design calculation API—covering all major chart types and a helper function without superfluous tools.
The tool set covers all primary Human Design calculations (individual, composite, dreamrave, penta, transit) and location lookup. Missing are tools for interpreting or persisting results, but core calculations are complete.
