Fetch a five-level bid/ask ladder for a Tehran Stock Exchange symbol, with order counts, buy/sell imbalance, and queue detection for market-depth analysis.
Five-level order book (عمق بازار) with order counts, imbalance and buy/sell queue (صف) detection.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating the payload contents: five depth levels, order counts, imbalance, and buy/sell queue detection, which tells the agent what signals it will get. It stops short of disclosing snapshot freshness, market-hours behavior, or latency.
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 filler: the depth level, the added metrics, and the Persian domain terms are all packed in without redundancy.
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 one-parameter, read-only market-data tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete because it enumerates the returned fields. The remaining gap is whether the book is a live snapshot or delayed and how it behaves outside trading hours.
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 coverage is 100% and the single symbol parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the Persian-name-or-insCode alternative. The description adds nothing about symbol semantics, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb-less but precise resource statement: a five-level order book with order counts, imbalance, and buy/sell queue (صف) detection, and it distinguishes itself implicitly from shallower siblings such as quote by naming the five-level depth and from order_book_history by omitting history. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as quote (top of book) or order_book_history (historical depth). The agent must infer that this tool is for current market-depth analysis with queue/imbalance signals, which is implied by the content list but never stated as a selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.