Retrieve overall market metrics—index and equal-weight index values, total value, volume, trades, and market cap—for the Tehran Stock Exchange or Fara market.
Index value, equal-weight index, total value/volume/trades and market cap for the market (نمای کلی بازار).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | 'bourse' or 'fara' | bourse |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that – no data freshness, caching, or scope notes that would help an agent interpret open-world live market data.
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 with no wasted wording. The enumeration is dense but front-loaded, though the trailing Persian gloss adds little for an agent that already has the tool name.
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?
For a simple, annotation-covered, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned metrics is close to sufficient. However, with many similar market-level siblings, the definition should say what this tool uniquely covers and which market values are valid in context, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 single 'market' parameter is fully documented as 'bourse' or 'fara' in the schema. The description only restates 'for the market', adding no semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 enumerates the metrics returned (index value, equal-weight index, value/volume/trades, market cap), which tells an agent roughly what data comes back, but it omits a verb and doesn't distinguish this from overlapping siblings such as market_snapshot, market_status, or indices. An agent would have to guess which market-level tool to pick.
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 at all – no mention of when market_overview is preferable to market_status, market_snapshot, or indices. The only clue is the parenthetical Persian label, which restates the tool name rather than routing the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.