Market rankings

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context that results are live, sourced only from Mofid, and priced in Rial, but it does not describe return shape, freshness guarantees, or limitations beyond source.

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 description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by source and unit constraints. Every sentence adds useful information without wasted wording.

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?

For a low-complexity ranking tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, live behavior, source, and currency. The main omission is a description of the returned row structure, though no output schema exists to compensate.

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%, so the enum values and limit parameter are already well documented in the schema. The description gives examples of ranking categories but does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Return one of the market's live top-N lists," and gives representative list types. It also identifies the data source and currency, but it does not clearly differentiate this tool from siblings such as br_market, br_screener, or br_quotes.

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?

The description implies that this tool is used for market ranking lists, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It mentions br_stocks only as the ranking source, not as an alternative tool to choose between.

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