Retrieve physical market trade statistics for a Jalali or Gregorian date range, with optional filters by commodity, producer, and symbol.
Search physical market trade statistics (بازار فیزیکی) for a Jalali or Gregorian date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| producer | No | ||
| commodity | No | ||
| start_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes that dates may be Jalali or Gregorian, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, rate limits, or what a search returns at a behavioral level.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the core scope is communicated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 7-parameter search tool.
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 explained, but with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description omits the filtering and pagination semantics an agent needs to invoke this correctly. It is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only gestures at the date range. It never explains symbol, producer, commodity filters or how limit/offset pagination works, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.
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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (physical market trade statistics) plus scope (a Jalali or Gregorian date range). This separates it from the singular get_physical_trade and get_physical_board siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_physical_trade for single-record lookups. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk/filtered retrieval variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.