astroway_stream_ingressRetrieve upcoming planet sign ingresses for a chosen number of days to track astrological transit changes.
Next planet sign-ingresses for N days.
[Group: Real-time Streaming] [Endpoint: POST /v1/stream/ingress] [Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| pricing | No | ||
| ingresses | No | ||
| transport | No | ||
| sseUpgrade | No | ||
| windowDays | No | ||
| nextEventAt | No | ||
| tickSeconds | 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=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotency. The description adds useful metadata the annotations lack: a POST endpoint and a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost, plus the 'N days' forecast window. It still doesn't explain what the operation returns or whether the POST implies any state change, which is a notable gap given readOnlyHint=false on a query-like tool.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed group/endpoint/cost lines are compact. There is little waste, though the metadata tags are boilerplate rather than descriptive 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?
Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. But for a real-time streaming tool with an ambiguous readOnlyHint=false and a crowd of sibling ingress tools, the description should do more to state behavior and discrimination; as-is it is only minimally sufficient.
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 single 'days' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. 'For N days' loosely ties to the parameter but gives no default, format, or bounds, and 'N' reads as a literal placeholder rather than an explanation.
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 sentence 'Next planet sign-ingresses for N days' names a specific astronomical event and a time window, so the general purpose is inferable. However, it fails to distinguish this stream tool from closely-named siblings like astroway_calendar_ingresses and astroway_webhooks_sign_ingress, leaving the agent unsure which ingress tool is correct.
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 streaming endpoint versus the static calendar_ingresses or the webhook sign_ingress subscription. The description provides only the endpoint and cost metadata, never stating prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.