IranTools (paid)

rial_toman_convert

Origin URL: https://irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev Origin hostname: irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev Origin brand: IranTools - paid MCP server for AI agents Provider aliases: Rial/Toman converter, Iranian unit converter Family key: irantools.johnaio281.workers.dev::iran Endpoint: POST /api/iran/rial_toman_convert Summary: Convert between Iranian rial and toman (1 toman = 10 rial). Keyword: rial to toman Keyword: toman to rial Keyword: currency conversion iran Keyword: 10 rial 1 toman Use case: convert 125000 rials to tomans Use case: convert a toman price back to rials Use case: convert between the two Iranian currency units Source description: Convert between Iranian rial and toman (1 toman = 10 rial). Auth mode: paid

Price: $0.003 per call (USDC on Base via x402, or USDC on Tempo via MPP).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "rial_toman_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No		toman
`amount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses paid auth mode, pricing per call, endpoint method, and the conversion ratio. It could say more about output shape or failure behavior, but the key behavioral traits are present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is padded with origin URL, hostname, brand, family key, repeated summary/source text, and multiple keyword lines. Useful information exists but is not front-loaded and the repeated metadata harms conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter conversion tool without annotations or an output schema, the description covers auth, price, endpoint, ratio, and use cases. However, it still leaves parameter direction and return behavior under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It gives examples that imply amount and direction, but it never explicitly defines the `from` parameter, its default, or whether `amount` is in the `from` unit, leaving some ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: convert between Iranian rial and toman, with the exact conversion ratio (1 toman = 10 rial). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling utilities like number_to_words_fa or iran_amount_to_words.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit use cases and keywords such as converting 125000 rials to tomans and converting a toman price back to rials. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All IranTools (paid) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?