ASTRA

fcs_stratify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recompute Pareto-dominance strata over three ordinal sub-criteria, returning dominance pairs, Hasse diagram, unordered cross-strata pairs, pair-removal shifts, and τ-cut alternatives.

Instructions

Recompute the partial order by Pareto dominance over the three ordinal sub-criteria and return the dominance relation itself (all ordered pairs and its Hasse diagram), the strata as a presentation of it, the pairs that different strata do NOT order, how strata shift when one pair is removed, and how alternative τ reductions fare against the eight strata of document IV §3. The τ ordinalisation is a parameter: the default — declared in document IV v1.3 §2 — cuts the range's lower bound at 10⁻¹ s, then at 10⁰ s. Reproducing the strata checks the transcription; it does not validate the cuts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fcs_stratify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tauCutsLog10`	No	Ascending decimal-exponent cuts on the τ range's lower bound. Default [-1, 0].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does 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 genuine context beyond that: it enumerates the returned artifacts, states that τ is a parameter with a documented default provenance (document IV v1.3 §2), and warns that reproducing strata does not validate the cuts.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded with the verb and scope, which is good, but the opening sentence sprawls into a long return-value list and is heavy with unexplained domain jargon (document IV §3, eight strata). Considerably denser than needed for a one-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does enumerate them. The main gap is that the enumerated outputs are not structured or ordered clearly, and domain references are left unexplained, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the τ ordinalisation parameter means in practice — that the default cuts the range's lower bound at 10⁻¹ s then 10⁰ s — adding interpretive meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Ascending decimal-exponent cuts' note.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Recompute the partial order by Pareto dominance over the three ordinal sub-criteria,' and enumerates the derived artifacts it returns (dominance relation, Hasse diagram, strata). An agent can grasp what it computes, but the description never differentiates it from adjacent fcs_* siblings such as fcs_compare, fcs_levels, or fcs_taxonomy.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It offers a caveat on interpretation ('Reproducing the strata checks the transcription; it does not validate the cuts'), which implies a verification use case, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Usage must be inferred from the dense domain phrasing.

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

Deploy Server