astroway_geomancy_puerRetrieve the Puer geomancy figure to interpret young energy, impulse, and new beginnings in divination readings via the AstroWay API.
Young man, energy, impulse.
[Group: Geomancy (Agrippa)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/geomancy/puer] [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 safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context not in annotations: the POST endpoint and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. However, it says nothing about what the response contains or whether the figure is a static reference vs. computed.
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?
Very short, with the descriptive keywords front-loaded and structured metadata (group, endpoint, cost) after. No filler sentences, though the single keyword line is thin given the space available.
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 values need not be explained, and no parameters require documentation. What remains missing is the basic statement of what the operation is and how it relates to the other geomancy figure tools, which is the only real gap for such a simple tool.
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 is nothing to disambiguate and the description cannot be faulted for parameter coverage. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
"Young man, energy, impulse" conveys the meaning of the geomantic figure Puer but never states what the tool actually does (e.g., returns the figure's definition/interpretation). With no verb or resource statement, the agent must infer a lookup operation from the name and sibling set (astroway_geomancy_puella, _albus, etc.).
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 indication of when to call this versus the other 15 geomancy figure siblings, nor whether a question or context is expected. The only routing signal is the single-word figure name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.