Live board of funds, certificates and salaf

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description then adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the board is live intra-session but freezes at the last session after close, with `time`/`date` as the staleness signal. It also enumerates the returned fields and units (value in Rial), which is real added value. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens when `search` matches nothing.

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 purpose and the live/closed behavior are front-loaded, and the sibling redirect is placed last where it belongs. The middle list of returned fields is the one long clause, but it earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of listing return fields and their units, and it explains the live-vs-frozen-session distinction an agent needs to interpret freshness. All parameters carry schema descriptions, so the gaps are minor: no note on sort/search interaction or behavior when no rows match.

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 both enums are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it never mentions kind, sort, limit or search, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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+resource: a market-view board at cdn.ime.co.ir returning best bid/ask and current quote fields, with the scope ('where a fund or certificate trades now') spelled out. It distinguishes itself from ime_securities by naming that sibling as the daily-history alternative, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states the positive case ('use it to see where a fund or certificate trades now') and names one explicit alternative ('For daily history over a range use ime_securities'), which covers the most likely confusion. It does not address the other plausible siblings (ime_certificates, ime_options, ime_market_summary), so routing among the full set is still partly inferred.

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