Retrieve capital increases and price adjustments with dates and adjustment factors for a Tehran-listed symbol or insCode. Use it to check corporate action history and calculate adjusted values.
Capital increases and price adjustments (افزایش سرمایه، تعدیل قیمت) with dates and factors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Persian symbol such as 'فولاد', or an insCode |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds that results include dates and factors, but it says nothing about data source, coverage limits, or the response shape beyond that.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded, and the bilingual Persian terms are useful for matching domain vocabulary. The phrase 'with dates and factors' is slightly vague but still earns its place by indicating included data fields.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter read tool whose schema and annotations are already complete. The description covers the data domain well enough to invoke it, though it could clarify what 'factors' means or whether dates are historical or upcoming.
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 100%, and the symbol parameter is already documented as a Persian symbol or insCode. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 names the resource clearly and specifies the two relevant corporate-action types, capital increases and price adjustments. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling alternative, but no sibling appears to cover corporate actions, so the tool is still distinguishable.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource: an agent should use it when it needs corporate-action data for a symbol. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison to sibling tools such as price_history or symbol_overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.