astroway_geomancy_carcerGenerate the Carcer geomancy figure to assess restriction, confinement, or isolation in divination readings.
Restriction, confinement, isolation.
[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/geomancy/carcer] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| figure | No | ||
| source | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the source (Agrippa) — but says nothing about what the call returns or whether input is required.
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?
Extremely short and every line carries information (keywords, group, endpoint, cost). It is well-formed metadata, though it opens with abstract keywords rather than a functional statement, which is not front-loaded for task selection.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. What is still missing is whether this is a static reference lookup requiring no input and what interpretive content it yields, which matters given the crowded geomancy sibling set.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It could have made explicit that no input is needed, which would be a small improvement.
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 only thematic keywords ('Restriction, confinement, isolation') and never states what the tool does — no verb, no statement that it returns the meaning/correspondences of the Carcer geomantic figure. The [Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)] tag and the endpoint let an agent infer it is one figure of a set, but the purpose is implied rather than stated.
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 when-to-use guidance and no differentiation from the ~15 sibling geomancy figure tools or from interpretive tools like astroway_ai_interpret_element. The agent must guess whether this is a lookup, a cast, or an interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.