Fetch ATNF pulsar catalogue parameters for a specified PSR J/B name, including period, spin-down power, characteristic age, fields, DM, distance, and associations.
ATNF pulsar catalogue parameters: period, Ṗ, spin-down power Ė, characteristic age, surface and light-cylinder fields, DM and distance, associations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | PSR J or B name, e.g. J0534+2200 or B0531+21. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the scope of returned quantities, which implies a read-only catalogue lookup. However it says nothing about behavior on an unknown/malformed name, whether values are derived vs measured, or units — gaps that matter for a data-lookup 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?
A single front-loaded phrase with zero filler; every token names a concrete returned quantity. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens orientation but costs nothing in length.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line definition leaves the agent to infer the response shape (flat key/value record? per-pulsar?), units, and failure behavior. The field enumeration compensates partially, but more is warranted for a catalogue lookup.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter already documents the PSR J / B formats with examples. The description adds no further guidance on the identifier (e.g., accepting aliases or common names), so it sits at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names the specific resource (ATNF pulsar catalogue) and enumerates the exact quantities returned (period, spin-down power, characteristic age, DM, distance, associations), which effectively tells an agent what the tool does. The verb is only implied — there is no 'retrieve/fetch' framing — but the field list makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling plotting/search tools.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as query_vizier, cone_search, or list_catalogs, and no prerequisites (e.g., what to do if the name is unknown or the pulsar is not in the catalogue). Usage is only inferable from the returned-field list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.