SpiritWave Labs Divination Engine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the five oracles are drawn server-side, interpreted, and then synthesized, and it states the exact cost and payment method ('$0.50 per call, paid via x402 (USDC on Base)'). This is significant behavioral disclosure for a paid external operation.

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 description is compact and well-structured: it opens with what the tool does, then explains when to use it, then closes with the cost. There is no filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it: the process, the use case, the exclusions, the cost, and the payment rail. The schema covers the parameter format, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The input schema already explains the question requirement and gives examples. The description reinforces the open-question guidance ('Not for trivial yes/no questions') but adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Consult the Pentamancy Council'), a concrete resource (five oracle systems consulted in parallel and synthesized), and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling single-oracle tools. The phrase 'consulted in parallel and synthesized into a single unified reading' makes the tool's unique function unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this when someone needs deep, multi-perspective guidance' and 'Best for questions of substance... Not for trivial yes/no questions.' The only gap is that no alternative sibling is named for the 'trivial yes/no' case, but the contrast with the single-oracle siblings is clear from context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'casts... and interprets,' and that it costs $0.10 paid via x402, which is useful. However, it does not say what the response contains, whether the result is deterministic, or any other operational side effects beyond payment.

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 description is compact, front-loads the action and method, and communicates selection context and cost in three sentences. The historical sentence is slightly supplementary, but it strengthens the tool's distinct identity without bloating the entry.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives selection guidance and cost, but leaves the return format and interpretation content unspecified. Since no output schema exists, a sentence describing what the response looks like would round out the help materially.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single 'question' parameter, including a description, so the tool description does not need to restate parameter meaning. The description adds domain context about suitable questions, but no extra syntax, formatting, or constraints beyond the schema.Description adds domain context about suitable questions, but no extra syntax

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'casts a full 16-figure shield chart and interprets it,' tied to the concrete Geomancy tradition ('Ilm al-Raml). This clearly differentiates it from the other 'consult_*' oracle tools by method and interpretive focus.

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?

The tool says it is 'Best for where the problem actually lies, structural diagnosis, practical matters, career, money, property, and health,' giving an agent usable selection context. It does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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

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 does transparently state that a random ghazal is drawn, that interpretation is delivered in a Sufi scholar voice, and that there is a cost of $0.10 per call. However, it does not describe the output format, reliability, or any limitations such as the interpretive nature being subjective.

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 description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the core practice and behavior before adding usage guidance and cost. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, behavior, use cases, and cost. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not describe the expected return structure, but the mention of 'draws a random ghazal and interprets it' gives enough of an outline for an agent to understand the result.

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 schema already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance by suggesting the types of questions that are suitable, which helps the agent formulate a better 'question' value beyond the schema's generic definition.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: consulting Fal-e Hafez via a random ghazal from the Divan. It also differentiates the tool from its siblings by emphasizing Persian poetry and themes of love, hope, and longing.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool, namely for 'questions of the heart, longing, love, hope, and the soul's quiet questions.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the thematic framing effectively implies a distinction from the other oracle tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well by disclosing the cost ($0.10 per call), the payment mechanism (x402/USDC on Base), and the interpretive style. It could add more about randomness/results, but the key non-obvious behaviors are surfaced.

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 description is front-loaded with the action and the useful 'Best for' framing, and it ends with cost. However, the historical aside ('oldest continuously used divination text... over 3,000 years old') is padding that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, making it less tight than it could be.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation need, the appropriate use case, and the cost side effect. Missing output format details are implied by the reading nature of the tool and are not critical for correct invocation.

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 parameter is already clearly described in the schema as 'The question to consult the I Ching about.' The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific resource (I Ching), the verb (consult), and the concrete mechanism (casts a hexagram and interprets it). The 'Daoist sage' voice and focus on change/dynamics clearly set it apart from sibling divination 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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Best for the dynamics of a situation — what is moving, what is stuck, the right action at the right time, change and transition.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals output tone ('terse, grounded, offers no modern comfort'), the interpretive persona (Norse völva), and a concrete cost (0.10 via x402). It does not explicitly describe the response format or whether runes are random, but it covers the major usage-impacting behaviors.

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?

Every sentence brings new information: the draw type, the interpretive voice, the best use cases, the tone, and the cost. No filler, and the most defining mechanics appear first.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it behaves stylistically, who it is for, and the cost. It stops short of clearly stating the shape of the returned reading, which would make it fully complete, but the invocation path is clear.

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 'question' parameter is adequately documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the question is what gets consulted but adds no additional parameter-level syntax, constraints, or examples, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Consult the Runes' with a clear mechanism ('three-rune draw... Elder Futhark') and interpretive style. This firmly distinguishes it from sibling divination tools like tarot or iching.

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?

Provides explicit suitability guidance ('Best for the hidden force at work, what drives the situation beneath the surface, courage, transformation, and the shadow') and contextualizes the voice ('no modern comfort'). Does not explicitly name when not to use or compare alternatives, hence not a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: the specific three-card spread, the interpretive tradition, the inclusion of 'crisis-response safety boundaries,' and the cost/payment mechanism ('$0.10 per call, paid via x402 (USDC on Base)'). It does not detail response format or disclaimers, but it provides much more than a minimal description.

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 description is compact and every sentence adds value: it states the spread, the deck and tradition, the best-use case, safety boundaries, and cost. The core action is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, when to use it, safety boundaries, and cost. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria or details about the response format, but the three-card spread description already conveys expected output structure.

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% with a clear parameter description ('The question to consult the Tarot about.'), so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds some contextual framing ('Best for complex situations...') but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Consult the Tarot — a three-card Past/Present/Future spread from the Rider-Waite-Smith deck.' It further specifies the interpretive tradition (Waite tradition) and clearly distinguishes this from sibling divination tools by naming the deck, spread structure, and focus.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Best for complex situations with many moving parts, hidden influences, and psychological depth.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare against sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing, but the guidance is useful and clear.

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