Retrieve standard parallel salaf trades from Iran Mercantile Exchange by start date, with optional symbol, end date, limit, and offset filters.
Search standard parallel salaf trades (سلف استاندارد).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| end_date | 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 burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, and gives no information on date-range semantics or result ordering.
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 short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the brevity leaves essential calling information absent.
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 for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far too thin — no parameter guidance, no behavioral traits, no usage context.
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 5 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Nothing explains the date format for start_date/end_date, what symbol accepts, or how limit/offset paginate — the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('salaf trades'), and the resource name itself distinguishes it from siblings like search_physical_trades and search_futures_trades. However, it offers no characterization of what a 'salaf' trade is beyond the Persian gloss, so an agent unfamiliar with the domain gets no further differentiation.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and never mentions any of the 12 sibling search/get tools. An agent must infer eligibility purely from the resource name with no exclusions or routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.