astroway_geomancy_laetitiaRetrieve the Laetitia geomancy figure to interpret happiness, optimism, and healing in a divination reading.
Happiness, optimism, healing.
[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/geomancy/laetitia] [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 establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the cost tier, credit amount, endpoint path, and HR metadata that are not in the annotations. It does not add auth or rate-limit details, but the added operational context is substantial.
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 very short and contains no filler; every element is either thematic meaning or operational metadata. Its weakness is front-loading the figure's qualities rather than a clear statement of what the endpoint does, but it remains compact.
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 output schema and annotations are present, so the description need not explain return values or safety. However, for an agent selecting among hundreds of astrological tools, the description still omits a clear statement of what this endpoint returns and how it differs from other geomancy figure endpoints beyond the figure name.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts that.
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 title and description identify the specific geomancy figure Laetitia and give its thematic meanings, but they never state the operation being performed, such as retrieving an interpretation of that figure. The name distinguishes it from sibling geomancy figures, but the description itself does not contain a verb+resource statement.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no guidance on choosing among the many geomancy figure siblings such as astroway_geomancy_acquisitio or astroway_geomancy_puella. The group label implies a domain but does not tell an agent when this specific endpoint is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.