Builds a multi-week plan for one habit, with weekly targets and dated milestones across a chosen horizon. Use it to turn completion rate and streak data into a concrete action schedule.
Multi-week plan for ONE habit: weekly targets and dated milestones over a chosen horizon. The most compute-intensive endpoint. Costs $0.10 in USDC on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| habit | Yes | ||
| horizon_days | No | Planning horizon in days. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that this is the most compute-intensive endpoint and costs $0.10 in USDC on Base. However, it does not explain payment flow, authentication, whether the operation creates persistent state, or what the caller receives.
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?
Three short sentences with no wasted language. Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the cost note follows naturally.
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?
The description covers the core purpose and cost, and briefly indicates the plan contains weekly targets and dated milestones. But for a paid, compute-intensive endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves important invocation context unspecified, including payment mechanics and the exact return shape.
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 only 50%, and the description adds little beyond clarifying that the habit input is for ONE habit and that the horizon is chosen. It does not explain the required nested habit fields or how optional metrics such as risk_score and mood_correlation affect the plan.
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 names a specific verb and resource: build a multi-week habit plan for one habit, with weekly targets and dated milestones over a chosen horizon. It is clearly distinct in kind from analysis/recommendation siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them by name.
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 implies usage for a single habit over a chosen horizon, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as recommend_next_actions or analyze_behaviour. The cost note is useful context but not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.