oddsky

eclipse_period

Find periods of short, deep, rare eclipses that Lomb-Scargle misses, and combine instruments for a long-baseline ephemeris.

Instructions

Period of short, deep, rare events (eclipses) that Lomb-Scargle misses: find the period at which every point more than depth mag below its series median falls at one phase, and no quiet point does. Combine instruments (e.g. ["ZTF:ZTF_r", "GAIA:G"]) for a long-baseline ephemeris.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "case": "<case>",
      "series": "<series>"
    },
    "name": "eclipse_period"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case`	Yes
`depth`	No
`p_max`	No
`p_min`	No
`series`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does well on the detection logic (threshold below median, phase-coherence test, quiet points must not align), which tells the agent what counts as a hit. It says nothing about cost, whether multiple candidate periods are returned, ties/ambiguity handling, or what happens when no period satisfies the criterion.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences that front-load the purpose before the detection criterion and the multi-instrument tip. Little waste, though the first sentence is syntactically heavy and the parameter references are embedded rather than enumerated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a non-trivial period-search tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover both inputs and results. It covers the core criterion but leaves the period-search bounds and the shape of the returned ephemeris unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It explains `depth` (mag below the series median) and illustrates `series` with an instrument-pair example, but `case`, `p_min`, and `p_max` get no explanation at all — not even units or defaults — leaving the search window's meaning to be guessed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (find the eclipse period) and pins down the exact algorithmic criterion: every point more than `depth` mag below the series median falls at one phase while no quiet point does. It also implicitly contrasts with the Lomb-Scargle approach in the sibling `periodogram`, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear selection context: use this for short, deep, rare events that Lomb-Scargle misses, and gives an additional usage mode (combining instruments for a long-baseline ephemeris). It does not name the sibling to use instead for sinusoidal/continuous variability, but the condition that selects this tool is explicit.

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