oddsky

prior_art

Check whether a sky position or case is previously known by querying SIMBAD, NED, papers, and major catalogues, returning a verdict for prior-art assessment.

Instructions

Run the Librarian: is it new? For a sky position (ra, dec in degrees; or give a case to use its target), look up the objects in SIMBAD and NED, merge the papers SIMBAD and ADS attach to them, ask the big catalogues (VSX, VarWISE, Milliquas, WISE AGN) and check the shelves of published samples. verdict: unlisted (no object anywhere) | catalogued (an object, but no paper title matches the topics; not evidence that nothing is published) | mentioned (titles match, but only in papers that list more than 500 objects) | studied (a title matches in a paper about the object, a shelf holds it, SIMBAD types it as a transient, or a catalogue of variables lists it: read those before calling anything new). An AGN-catalogue entry is reported and does not change the verdict. complete = false means a source could not be queried, or ADS held more papers than were read, and the verdict is not final. topics: transient, dimming, infrared_excess, binary (default all). epoch: the date of the position as a decimal year (2010.5 for AllWISE); give it for anything that may be a nearby star, so that SIMBAD's stars are moved to that date by their proper motion (default: no motion). Open mode only. Logged to the ledger when a case is given.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "prior_art"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ra`	No
`dec`	No
`case`	No
`epoch`	No
`topics`	No
`max_papers`	No
`radius_arcsec`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it lists the external sources queried, defines the four verdict values and their epistemic weight ('not evidence that nothing is published'), explains that complete=false means a source failed or papers were truncated, and discloses a side effect ('Logged to the ledger when a case is given'). Undisclosed are rate limits, failure/error behavior, and what exactly the result object contains.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Almost every clause carries information, and the core question is front-loaded. But it is delivered as a single dense run-on with stacked parentheses and jargon ('check the shelves of published samples'), which makes the verdict and parameter semantics hard to scan. Splitting the verdict definitions and the parameter notes into separate lines would cost nothing and gain a lot.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a complex, multi-source, seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is queried, what the verdict means, when the verdict is provisional, and the logging side effect. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned evidence (matched objects, paper lists, catalogue entries), which for a tool with no output schema leaves a real gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define all seven parameters. It handles ra/dec units (degrees), case (uses the case target), epoch (decimal year with an AllWISE example and proper-motion behavior), and topics (enumerating transient, dimming, infrared_excess, binary with default all). max_papers is only alluded to indirectly ('ADS held more papers than were read'), and radius_arcsec (default 5) is never mentioned at all, leaving two params undocumented anywhere.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific operation and resource: a prior-art / novelty check that cross-matches a sky position against SIMBAD, NED, ADS, and named catalogues to produce a verdict. That is far more concrete than the bare name 'prior_art'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as 'literature' or 'neighbors', so an agent cannot rule those out from the text alone.

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?

It gives clear triggering context ('is it new?', 'For a sky position ... or give a case to use its target') and conditional advice ('give epoch for anything that may be a nearby star', 'read those before calling anything new'). It also flags an operational restriction ('Open mode only'). What it lacks is any explicit when-not or named alternative, so the caller still has to infer how this differs from siblings.

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