Market totals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real context: dates default to today in Tehran time, the range should be kept short, and units (million Rial, tonnes). It does not say anything about cost/limits when a wide range is requested beyond 'keep it short', which is the only remaining gap for a read tool.

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-loads the scope sentence, then usage, then caveats — every sentence carries information (units, defaults, alternative). Slight drag from the parenthetical hall enumeration and the compressed 'offer_volume' clause, but no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returned values — and it does, naming units for values, volumes, offer_volume, and the USD settlement rate. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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% and documents both dates' accepted formats, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the default behavior ('dates default to today (Tehran)') and a practical range-size constraint that the schema does not express.

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 resource (exchange-wide trade value and volume) with its exact breakdowns (by market, by physical-market hall, plus USD rate) and a date range. An agent can distinguish it from a single-market or single-security tool without opening the 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 concrete use cases ('how big was trading this week', 'which hall led') and explicitly routes the alternative: 'For a day-by-day series use ime_daily_totals.' Both the when and the when-not are present.

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