calculate_lawyer_feeCalculate حقالوکاله from the official bar-association tariff (تعرفهٔ کانون وکلا) by case type, stage and outcome. Never guess a lawyer's statutory fee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | Yes | Court stage. | |
| outcome | Yes | Case outcome (or projection). | |
| case_type | No | Case type. | |
| case_value_toman | No | Case value in Toman. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose that the fee is derived from an official tariff, which implies reliability. However, it does not mention output format, error handling, or behavior when optional parameters (case_type, case_value_toman) are omitted, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and source. The second sentence adds a clear usage directive. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the authoritative source and the basis of calculation. A minor gap is not explicitly noting what the tool returns (e.g., a fee amount), but that is easily inferred from the title and purpose.
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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds context by naming the three key dimensions (case type, stage, outcome) but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for any parameter, such as how case_value_toman affects the calculation.
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 it calculates the lawyer fee from the official bar-association tariff, specifying the inputs (case type, stage, outcome). This verb+resource+scope is specific and naturally distinguishes it from sibling calculators like calculate_litigation_fee or calculate_notary_fee.
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 directive 'Never guess a lawyer's statutory fee' clearly indicates when to use this tool (whenever an official fee is required). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to understand this is the authoritative fee calculator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific legal calculation, lookup, or search source. The calculate_* tools each cover a distinct statutory computation (e.g., delay penalty vs. diyeh vs. mahrieh), the lookup_* tools are for direct retrieval of known items, and the search_* tools are split by source type (law, case law, opinions, circulars). While lookup_annual_rate and search_circular both touch rates, their descriptions clearly separate direct database retrieval from full-text search, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: calculate_* for computations, lookup_* for direct retrieval, and search_* for full-text search. There are no camelCase or mixed-style names, making the set highly predictable.
Nineteen tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but the server covers a large legal domain with many distinct calculation types and research sources. Each tool earns its place given the breadth of Iranian law, though the number may feel a bit heavy.
The toolset covers statutory calculations (10), specific-article lookup and procedural lookups (5), and full-text search across laws, case law, advisory opinions, and circulars (4). This spans the essential needs of Iranian legal research—computing amounts, finding article text, checking deadlines/sentences/limitations, and finding authoritative interpretations—with no obvious dead ends.