Search and rank stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: prices are in rial, value in billion Toman, and shares that did not trade are excluded from results. With no output schema, the note that each row carries ins_code and symbol is also material to correct downstream use.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and followed by usage examples and one unit/exclusion caveat. No sentence is reusable boilerplate; each adds either routing or output-shape information.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining return row identity (ins_code, symbol), units, and the exclusion of untraded shares. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by linking parameters to other tools — symbol feeding fp_stock and the industry value being resolvable via fp_industries. It stops short of restating sort/limit semantics, which the schema already handles well.

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?

States a specific verb (search and rank) and resource (listed shares traded on the last trading day) with the ranking modes named: gainers, losers, most traded, by industry. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by directing ticker lookups to fp_stock and industry names to fp_industries.

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?

Gives concrete triggering queries ("biggest gainers today", "most traded banks", "find the ticker of X") and explicitly routes the agent onward: pass the returned symbol to fp_stock for a full quote. The alternative and the handoff condition are both stated, not inferred.

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