Fund detail, history or comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description discloses genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: data comes from Agah only, monetary values are in Rial and returns in percent, history is ordered oldest first, and the price/returns series have unlabeled columns. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or error behavior, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 structure is strongly front-loaded: capability first, source/routing second, then a compact enumeration keyed to one fund, one fund plus metric, and several funds. It is dense but each clause carries distinct information; the only slight redundancy is restating the metric/history mode that the schema also describes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return shapes, and it does so at three levels of granularity (detail fields, daily series, comparison table). Combined with units, ordering, and the 6-fund comparison cap implied by the schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though a hint on series length defaults would make it complete.

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 schema already documents each parameter and the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning not in the schema: units (Rial, percent), the oldest-first ordering of metric series, and the ETF-specific extras (live bubble and order book) that a caller would not infer from parameter names alone.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (show) and resource (an Agah investment fund) and enumerates the three output modes: detail, daily history, and side-by-side comparison. The second sentence explicitly separates it from siblings, noting that Mofid funds live in br_mofid_funds and Mofid ETFs in br_stock/br_etfs, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Usage is spelled out per cardinality of the `funds` argument: one fund yields detail (issue/redeem prices, returns vs index, dollar and gold), one fund plus `metric` yields a history series, and several funds yield a comparison. It also names the companion tools for the surrounding steps (br_search with kind='fund' to find codes, br_screener to filter many funds), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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