get_physical_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (IME CDN board) and a mirror endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior implied by limit/offset, freshness/latency of the snapshot, or failure modes when the source is unreachable.

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?

It is a single compact sentence, which is good, but the parenthetical about tts.ime.co.ir is tangential infrastructure detail rather than the information an agent needs (what it returns, how to page or filter).

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, but for a tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves the filtering semantics, paging, and relationship to sibling board tools completely unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for limit, offset, and symbol, and it does not. Only the generic param names carry meaning; the description never explains that symbol filters the board or how limit/offset page through the snapshot.

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 resource ('live contracts from IME CDN board') but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb, and its only differentiator from siblings like get_derivatives_board and get_financial_board is the indirect hint 'physical hall'. An agent can guess it is the physical-market counterpart, but the description never says so outright.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_derivatives_board, get_financial_board, or search_physical_trades. The only conditional language ('when accessible') describes source availability, not the agent's decision criteria.

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