astroway_palmistry_heart_lineAnalyzes the heart line in palmistry to interpret emotional life and romantic tendencies, helping you understand relationship patterns from palm features.
Emotional life, romance.
[Group: Palmistry (Cheiro)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/palmistry/heart-line] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| disclaimer | 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful operational context (cost of 10 credits, Tier 1, POST endpoint, Cheiro group), but says nothing beyond annotations about output behavior or interpretation depth.
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 very short and front-loads the thematic label, with no verbose filler. The tradeoff is that it is too terse to be self-explanatory, but it does not waste words.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, in a large catalog of closely named palmistry tools, it does not provide enough context to confidently distinguish this heart-line tool from its siblings.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema detail here.
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 only gives the thematic tag 'Emotional life, romance' and metadata; it never states what the tool actually does. It effectively restates the heart-line association implied by the name/title rather than naming a verb and resource, leaving the agent to infer it produces a palmistry reading.
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, when not to use it, or how it relates to the many sibling palmistry lines. The group and endpoint metadata do not help select it over fate_line, head_line, life_line, or marriage_line.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.