Calculate the Human Design transit chart for a specific moment in time.
Plan: Basic or higher · Cost: 0.5 credits per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transit_datetime | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses plan requirement and cost, which are behavioral traits beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, the description should cover more, such as rate limits or side effects. The cost info adds some value but is minimal.
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 concise sentences plus a cost line. No wasted words, though the cost/plan info could be integrated into the main description.
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?
With one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and cost. It lacks prerequisites or limitations but is minimally adequate for a low-complexity 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?
The description says 'specific moment in time' for the only parameter, but adds no format or constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could do more to clarify the datetime format.
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 Human Design transit chart for a specific time. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_bodygraph or calculate_composite, which handle different chart types.
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. Context like 'Plan: Basic or higher' hints at access level, but no explicit usage conditions or when-not-to-use.
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.
