Fetch exchange-computed averages and statistics for a Tehran Stock Exchange symbol or insCode, such as average traded value over three months.
Exchange-computed averages and stats for the symbol (e.g. average traded value over 3 months).
| 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 establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful provenance by stating that the exchange computes the statistics, but it does not clarify data freshness, coverage, or behavior for invalid symbols.
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 efficient statement that front-loads the source, resource, and symbol scope. The parenthetical example adds concrete value without unnecessary wording.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description provides enough information to understand the basic request. However, with no output schema, the broad phrase 'averages and stats' leaves the available metrics and result structure unclear, and sibling boundaries remain unstated.
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?
The schema fully documents the sole required parameter, including support for Persian symbols and insCode values. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the high schema coverage supports the baseline score.
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 clearly identifies the resource and operation: retrieving exchange-computed averages and statistics for a symbol, with a concrete example. It does not distinguish these statistics from sibling tools such as symbol_overview or trade_summary.
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 for agents seeking exchange-computed symbol averages rather than raw quotes or trades. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over symbol_overview, trade_summary, or price_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.