SpiritWave Labs Divination Engine

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that all five oracles are drawn server-side, that they run in parallel, that interpretation plus synthesis happens server-side, and that there is a hard quota (30 readings per client per day, currently free). It omits latency expectations and whether any auth/account is required for the quota to apply.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage conditions, then the quota — a sensible order with no padding. Minor redundancy: the 'not for trivial yes/no questions' caution is already repeated verbatim-ish inside the schema's question 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does gesture at the return shape ('synthesized into a single unified reading'), plus the free/quota caveat. Missing are rough latency for a five-oracle parallel call and any note about what a failed or partial reading looks like.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing what a well-formed question looks like ('questions of substance', avoid yes/no) and the free-tier constraint that shapes usage, going modestly beyond the schema's own parameter description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consult the Pentamancy Council'), then enumerates exactly what it does — draws five named oracles in parallel and synthesizes one reading. That single/dedicated distinction cleanly separates it from the five consult_* sibling tools that each handle one oracle.

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?

Gives clear selection context ('deep, multi-perspective guidance', 'major decisions, emotional crossroads, spiritual direction') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for trivial yes/no questions'). It never names the individual sibling tools as the lighter-weight alternative, so the routing to consult_tarot/consult_runes etc. is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is currently free and rate-limited to 30 readings per client per day, but it does not explain output format, error handling, or other operational details.

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 front-loaded with the core action and mostly efficient. The sentence about being the oldest continuous Western divination tradition is somewhat promotional, but the rate-limit notice is practical and earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter consultation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage contexts, and rate limits well. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at what the interpretation output contains, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already says about the 'question' parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Consult Geomancy') and states exactly what the tool does: casts a full 16-figure shield chart and interprets it. It also identifies the divination system ('Ilm al-Raml, the Arabic Science of Sand), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like consult_tarot or consult_iching.

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?

It gives clear 'best for' contexts: structural diagnosis, practical matters, career, money, property, and health. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a ghazal is drawn at random, that output is styled as a Sufi scholar's interpretation, and that there is a hard rate limit (30 readings per client per day) plus a free/pricing status. Auth requirements and precise response structure are not addressed, but the operational traits an agent needs are largely present.

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?

Front-loaded with what the practice is and what the tool returns, followed by domain guidance and operational constraints. The 'oldest and most-used oracle on SpiritWave Labs' sentence is mild promotional filler, but the rate-limit sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains what comes back (an interpreted ghazal in a scholar's voice). For a one-parameter divination tool with no annotations, it covers identity, return nature, and rate limits adequately; only auth and any error behavior are unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The question to consult Hafez about' with minLength/maxLength constraints). The description adds no syntax, tone, or formatting guidance for the question beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (consult) and resource (Fal-e Hafez / a random ghazal from the Divan) plus what it produces (an interpretation in the voice of a Sufi scholar). It also scopes the domain (questions of the heart, longing, love). It never names a sibling oracle, so the agent must infer differentiation from the thematic domain alone.

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?

"Best for questions of the heart, longing, love, hope, and the soul's quiet questions" gives clear thematic context for when to choose this tool over a generic consultation. However, no explicit when-not condition and no sibling (consult_tarot, consult_iching, etc.) is named as an alternative, so routing still requires inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load — and it does disclose two things an agent genuinely needs: the output style (interpretation 'in the voice of a Daoist sage') and an operational constraint ('FREE, limited to 30 readings per client per day'). It does not say whether readings are persisted or retrievable, which is a minor gap for a generation-style tool.

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?

Short, front-loaded with the verb, and the rate-limit constraint is placed last where it belongs. The historical flourish ('oldest continuously used divination text in the world, over 3,000 years old') is atmospheric padding that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description supplies enough: what is produced (a cast hexagram plus sage-voiced interpretation) and the quota that could cause a failure. What remains unstated is the return shape — structured hexagram data vs. free text — which the agent can only guess at.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'question' fully and the baseline is 3. The description adds no guidance on how the question should be phrased or scoped for a good reading, so it does not go 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Consult the I Ching ... Casts a hexagram and interprets it') and specifies the interpretive voice, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It carves out a niche ('dynamics of a situation ... change and transition') that implicitly separates it from the other divination siblings, but no sibling is ever named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Best for the dynamics of a situation — what is moving, what is stuck, the right action at the right time' gives a clear selection criterion among consult_* siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool (e.g. for fixed questions or personal reflection, where tarot/rune siblings might be preferred).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose material traits: a hard operational quota ('FREE, limited to 30 readings per client per day') and the character of the response (terse völva voice, no modern comfort). It does not state read-only/reversibility or whether draws are randomized, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity and draw structure, then usage fit, then voice, then the quota. Every sentence carries information and none is filler. The 'Best for...' list is slightly long but each element is load-bearing.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what's missing structurally: the response's tone and framing (terse, no modern comfort) and the free quota. An agent can call it correctly and set caller expectations. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing leaves a gap.

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?

There is only one parameter ('question') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description names 'the question' as the input but adds no syntax, length, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consult the Runes') and details the mechanism: a three-rune Urd/Verdandi/Skuld draw from the Elder Futhark in a völva's voice. This is far beyond a tautology and is inherently distinct from the sibling divination tools. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself against consult_tarot or consult_iching, leaving the sibling distinction to be inferred from the divination system named.

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?

'Best for the hidden force at work, what drives the situation beneath the surface, courage, transformation, and the shadow' gives explicit when-to-use guidance for question selection, which is more than implied usage. It stops short of 5 because there are no exclusions and no routing to the five sibling consult_* tools, so the agent must guess when runes beat tarot or iching.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a fixed three-card spread, the specific deck and interpretive tradition, presence of crisis-response safety boundaries, and a concrete rate limit (30 readings per client per day) plus FREE status. What it omits is any indication of what the response contains (raw card draws vs. prose interpretation), which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is before moving to suitability, safety, and pricing. Each sentence carries information, though the deck/tradition clause and the FREE/pricing clause border on promotional framing that an agent doesn't strictly need.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-annotation tool the description covers identity, suitability, safety posture, and cost/quota well. The notable gap is return shape — with no output schema, the agent gets no sense of whether it receives card names, positions, or interpretive text.

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?

There is a single parameter (question) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about question phrasing, length, or framing beyond the schema's minLength/maxLength constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource plus unusual specificity — a three-card Past/Present/Future spread from the Rider-Waite-Smith 1909 deck interpreted in the Waite tradition. That pins the tool down precisely, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with its siblings (consult_runes, consult_iching, etc.), so an agent must infer the division of labor from the deck/tradition detail alone.

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?

"Best for complex situations with many moving parts, hidden influences, and psychological depth" is clear positive guidance on when this tool is the right pick, implicitly comparative against sibling divination tools. However, it names no alternative and gives no when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.