calculate_litigation_feeCalculate Iranian court filing fees (هزینهٔ دادرسی) for a monetary claim at a given stage (بدوی / تجدیدنظر / فرجام), using the current official percentages. Use this instead of estimating — the rates are statutory and stage-dependent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | Court stage. | |
| amount | Yes | Claim value in Toman. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool relies on current official percentages and that rates are stage-dependent, adding useful context. However, it doesn't address output format, errors, or side effects, though these are minimal for a calculator.
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 concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and usage. No unnecessary 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?
The tool is simple and well-covered by the description plus schema. It lacks explicit output format or default behavior for optional stage, but these are minor gaps for a fee calculator.
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 descriptions for both amount and stage. The description reinforces that stage is one of three values and that rates depend on stage, but adds little 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 clearly states the tool calculates Iranian court filing fees for a monetary claim at a specified stage, using official percentages. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculator tools by targeting litigation fees specifically.
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 explicitly instructs to use this instead of estimating, noting rates are statutory and stage-dependent. This implies when to use, but does not name alternative tools or provide exclusions.
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.