Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• inspect_historical_timezoneA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a read/computation: resolving to UTC and reporting DST status. It also discloses a key behavioral nuance—it uses historical rules and avoids the present-day offset that causes wrong charts. It does not detail the exact return shape, but the 'report whether...' phrasing gives a solid implicit contract.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the additional historical examples are purposeful rather than filler. It is slightly verbose with the DST period list, but that content directly supports why the tool matters and when to use it.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, why it is needed, and the common pitfall it avoids. It does not explicitly state the output format or edge cases like invalid dates during DST transitions, but it gives enough behavioral context for an agent to call it correctly and interpret its purpose.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value around the timezone parameter by explaining historical DST relevance and the birthplace-vs-user distinction, but it does not add parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a local birth date and time to UTC using historical timezone rules' and 'report whether daylight saving time was actually in effect.' It distinguishes itself from chart-generation siblings by framing itself as the explanation for why charts differ, not as a chart calculator.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use this to explain WHY two charts differ.' It also provides concrete historical DST windows and warns against the common present-day-offset mistake, giving strong contextual cues for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like calculate_natal_chart or verify_ascendant, so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• verify_ascendantA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that the tool recomputes via a library-free spherical-geometry path, reports distance from the primary engine, and optionally validates an external claim, naming the likely cause when it fails. It does not cover failure modes or exact output details, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is four sentences and every sentence earns its place: the independent method, verification behavior, usage trigger, and accepted claim formats. It is front-loaded with the core mechanism and contains no padding.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains verification behavior, optional claim validation, when to invoke it, and accepted input formats. It does not specify the exact return structure or edge-case behavior, but the calling context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful examples for the `claim` parameter ('Virgo', '處女座', '12 Leo', 'Leo 12°34''), which the schema leaves abstract. It also reinforces that date, time, and timezone are local birthplace values, matching the schema's own definitions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('recompute'/'verify') and resource ('ascendant'), and clarifies that it uses a pure-spherical-geometry path independent of the primary engine. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling chart-calculuation tools and makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this when a user says two sites disagree about their rising sign, doubts a result, or asks which one is correct,' providing concrete trigger conditions. It does not name alternatives among the siblings or state when not to use it, but the use cases are clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• calculate_chart_without_birth_timeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that omitted chart points are not estimated, that only genuinely knowable data is returned, and that the Moon sign may be reported as undetermined when the Moon changed sign that day. This goes well beyond a generic 'calculate' description.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Four sentences, with the target audience front-loaded and every sentence contributing a distinct, useful behavioral fact. There is no filler or repeated schema information, and the description remains readable despite covering nuanced caveats.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite having no output schema, the description clearly communicates what the tool returns and what it deliberately omits, along with the Moon-sign uncertainty and the no-fabrication policy. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all four parameters, including the important timezone caveat about birthplace versus user's current zone. The description adds context about date sensitivity for the Moon sign but does not need to repeat parameter-level syntax.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific use case: calculating a chart when birth time is unknown. It distinguishes itself from a normal natal-chart calculation by explicitly naming what is omitted (ascendant, midheaven, houses) and by warning against the common noon-substitution shortcut.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It explicitly identifies the trigger condition: users who do not know their birth time. It also gives a clear exclusion by warning never to substitute noon and present the result as fact. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the intended usage is unambiguous from context.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• calculate_natal_chartA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic functionality by explaining that results are cross-checked by two independent implementations and that the call FAILS rather than returning a chart on disagreement. It also states the exact-birth-time requirement, giving the agent a clear failure condition.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three purposeful sentences: the first defines scope and output, the second explains the fail-safe behavior, and the third gives usage and routing guidance. No sentence is wasted and the critical usage guidance is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the full set of returned chart components and the failure behavior when the two astronomy implementations disagree. Combined with fully documented parameters and an explicit alternative tool for missing birth time, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description adds some contextual meaning by emphasizing the exact birth time requirement, but does not add substantive meaning to any individual parameter beyond what the schema provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('full natal/birth chart'), then enumerates exact output elements: ten planets with sign/degree/house/retrograde, ascendant, midheaven, and twelve house cusps. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like verify_ascendant and calculate_chart_without_birth_time.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this whenever a user asks for a birth chart, rising sign, or planetary placements' and warns not to do the arithmetic manually. It also provides a clear exclusion and alternative: if birth time is unknown, use calculate_chart_without_birth_time.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.