calculate_stamp_dutyCalculate حقالثبت (registration duty) for property, vehicle, company, marriage and divorce documents. Distinct from حقالتحریر (the notary's own fee — use calculate_notary_fee for that).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_type | Yes | Transaction/document type. | |
| amount_toman | No | Transaction amount in Toman (for rate-based types). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention anything about how the calculation works, whether amount_toman is required for all types, what the return value looks like, or any edge cases. This is a significant gap for a calculation 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately distinguishing from a sibling tool. 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?
The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the main scope but fails to mention that some enum types (e.g., will, power_attorney) are not explicitly listed, and it does not state that the result is in Toman or that amount_toman is required only for rate-based types. The schema covers parameter details, but the description is slightly incomplete for a calculation tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some context about document types but does not materially enhance understanding of the parameters beyond the enum list. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool calculates حق الثبت (registration duty) for a specific set of document types, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool calculate_notary_fee by explicitly naming the alternative.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative ('Distinct from حق التحرير (the notary's own fee — use calculate_notary_fee for that)'). This makes the appropriate context clear.
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.