iran-bourse-mcp

futures_market

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query Tehran derivatives futures contracts to compare last and close prices, bid/ask, volume, open interest, expiry, and basis versus the underlying, including annualised basis estimates.

Instructions

Futures (آتی) of the Tehran derivatives market (about 16 contracts): last and close price, bid/ask, volume, value, open interest, expiry and days left, plus the basis against the underlying - absolute, percent and an annualised estimate (formula in the notes). Contracts that did not trade today show no price and no basis.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "futures_market"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum rows to return (1-50); the server rejects larger values
`sort_by`	No	expiry (default), underlying, open_interest, volume, value or basis_pct
`descending`	No	Reverse the default direction (nearest expiry first; largest first for the numeric keys)
`underlying`	No	Underlying symbol or fragment, e.g. 'اهرم', 'شستا'. Omit for every futures contract.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the approximate 16-contract universe, the fact that non-traded contracts return no price and no basis, and that the annualised basis formula lives in the notes rather than in the output. It does not mention units or currency, which matters for a market-data feed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its field inventory, followed by the one caveat about untraded contracts. Dense but no filler; the field list is long but each item maps to a real returned column.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description earns its place by enumerating returned fields, and all four optional parameters are covered by the schema. Remaining gaps are modest — no pagination/limit-default behavior and no statement of price/value units.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, sort_by, descending and underlying are fully documented in the schema with their valid keys and defaults. The description adds only indirect hints ('expiry and days left' maps to the expiry sort, 'basis' to basis_pct); the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantic load.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource — Tehran derivatives-market futures (about 16 contracts) — and enumerates exactly what each record contains (last/close, bid/ask, volume, value, open interest, expiry, days left, basis in three forms). That is enough for an agent to separate it from option_chain or commodity_market, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the many sibling market-data tools (option_chain, commodity_market, market_watch). The only usable context is the implicit 'this is the futures listing' framing plus the note that untraded contracts show no price or basis.

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