Gold and other deposit certificates

Does 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 useful behavior beyond that: the default window is the last 30 days capped at 90, and prices are quoted in Rial per certificate unit (~1 gram for gold bar, one coin for GoldCoin). It stops short of describing pagination, row limits in the list mode, or what 'active customers' counts.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and both modes, and the sibling routing is placed last where it belongs. Slightly redundant: the opening sentence's commodity list is restated as 'gold bar / gold coin / silver certificates' in the next line, costing a clause without adding 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it well, enumerating first/high/low/last, settlement, change, volume, value, open interest and active customers. Unit and currency semantics are covered. What's missing is list-mode sizing or truncation behavior for the all-certificates branch.

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 would be 3. The description still adds real semantics: it explains that `commodity` switches the tool between summary and history modes, and that dates default to the last 30 days with a 90-day maximum — a constraint absent from the schema's date descriptions.

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 the specific resource (continuous commodity deposit certificates on the IME) and enumerates the covered commodities, then splits the tool's two behaviors cleanly: list-all with latest day stats vs. per-commodity history. It explicitly routes fund and saffron-certificate symbols to ime_securities, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit conditional: without `commodity` you get every certificate's latest day; with `commodity` you get that certificate's day-by-day history. It also names the alternative tool (ime_securities) and the symbol class that belongs there, which is exactly the when-not-to-use guidance most definitions omit.

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