Daily trade totals

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 the annotations cannot: a 14-day default window and a hard 45-day cap. It stops short of describing granularity edge cases (holidays, missing days, timezone) or response ordering.

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?

Two short paragraphs: the first states what it returns, the second states when to use it and the operative constraints. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim and the constraint (45-day max) is placed where an agent will hit it before calling.

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 burden of explaining returns, and it does so adequately — day-by-day series of value and volume with units stated. Missing only minor details such as whether empty days are included and the ordering of the returned series.

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 date formats plus Persian/Gregorian flexibility are already documented per-parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning the schema lacks — that value is in million Rial and volume is tonnes/contracts/units depending on market — which is a real complement to the enum, though market-specific unit mapping is the only true addition.

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 names the resource precisely — day-by-day value and volume for one market over a date range — and the parenthetical 'the site's market chart' anchors it to a concrete artifact. It implicitly separates itself from ime_price_history (price, not volume/value) and ime_market_summary (snapshot, not series), but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use framing ('Use it for trends') with a worked example question about physical volume over the last month, which tells the agent the intended shape of request. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives for point-in-time or per-security queries, leaving that routing to inference.

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