astroway_iching_throw_coinsSimulates a seeded three-coin I Ching cast to generate a hexagram result, letting you perform repeatable coin toss readings through the AstroWay calculation API.
Seeded 3-coin method.
[Group: I Ching (Standalone)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/iching/throw-coins] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| method | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| hexagram | 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the method is seeded and notes a 10-credit cost, which is useful, but it does not explain what the seed controls, what is returned, or any other behavioral constraint.
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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted narrative sentences. The [Group]/[Endpoint]/[Cost] metadata is boilerplate but not harmful; the main issue is under-specification rather than verbosity.
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?
For a low-complexity, single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows it is a seeded I Ching coin cast and the cost. It is still incomplete for routing among the many I Ching siblings and for interpreting the `seed` argument.
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?
There is one optional parameter (`seed`) and schema description coverage is 0%. The phrase "seeded 3-coin method" hints that the seed affects reproducibility, but it does not explain accepted seed formats, whether reusing a seed yields the same cast, or how omitted seeds behave. It only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 identifies the divination method ("3-coin method") and adds that it is seeded, but it is a fragment with no verb, outcome, or distinction from siblings such as astroway_iching_by_question or astroway_iching_with_changing_lines. An agent can infer it belongs to I Ching coin casting but not exactly what it produces.
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 tool versus the other I Ching tools (by_question, daily, lookup_number, with_changing_lines). The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.