astroway_palmistry_life_lineEvaluates the palm's life line to assess vitality, health, and life force for palmistry readings and health-focused interpretations.
Vitality, health, life force.
[Group: Palmistry (Cheiro)] [Endpoint: POST /v1/palmistry/life-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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts not in annotations: the POST endpoint and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, which matters for an agent budgeting calls. It stops short of saying what the payload contains, but output schema exists.
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?
Extremely short with no padding; every token (keywords, group, endpoint, cost) carries information. Front-loading is weak because the only semantic content is a four-word fragment while the operational metadata follows in brackets.
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 zero inputs, an existing output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is callable as-is. However it never explains what the zero-parameter call actually produces (a static Cheiro interpretation of the life line?) or whether any user/palm data is expected, leaving a meaningful comprehension gap.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no input semantics for the description to explain. The endpoint and cost metadata are the only non-schema facts offered.
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 topic fragment ('Vitality, health, life force') rather than a verb+resource statement; it never says it returns a Cheiro palmistry reading of the life line. The bracketed group tag 'Palmistry (Cheiro)' does differentiate it from fate_line/head_line/heart_line siblings and the keywords convey what a life line signifies, but the actual action is left implicit.
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 use this over the sibling palmistry lines (fate, head, heart, marriage), no prerequisites, no context about how to frame the result to a user. The only implicit signal is the group tag, nothing explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.