astroway_geomancy_populusInterpret the Populus geomancy figure representing crowds and gatherings, returning its meaning through the AstroWay Geomancy API for use in divination readings.
Crowd, gathering, public.
[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/geomancy/populus] [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 behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add context beyond annotations: the Agrippa tradition grouping and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which is genuinely useful for planning. It says nothing about what the response contains, though an output schema exists to cover that.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, with no filler prose. However, brevity is achieved by omission rather than by economy: one keyword fragment plus endpoint/cost metadata leaves almost no substantive content.
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?
With an output schema present and no parameters, the remaining burden is small, and the description supplies group, endpoint, and cost. Still, it never states what the invocation produces conceptually (a figure's meaning, an oracle result, a correspondence entry), leaving the agent to infer it from the 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 (empty object schema), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 is a keyword gloss of the Latin title ('Populus: The People' -> 'Crowd, gathering, public') with no verb or resource stated. It never says the tool returns or interprets the Populus geomantic figure, so an agent must infer the action from the name alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this figure versus the 15 sibling geomancy figures (Via, Puella, Puer, etc.), nor any mention of a question, chart, or casting context. The only implied usage cue is the theme word, which is left for the agent to interpret.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.