Stock market watch with sorting

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the ~750-symbol universe, the single-source (Agah) constraint, and the Rial currency unit for money and prices. It does not describe output shape or ordering ties, which is the remaining gap.

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 core action and kept to a few tight sentences, but the instruction "Then call br_stock for one symbol" appears twice, which is pure duplication in an otherwise economical definition.

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?

Six optional parameters all have defaults, no output schema exists, and the description still conveys enough to call correctly: what gets ranked, in what unit, from which source, and how to drill down. Missing detail on default sort behavior in prose and on the returned list contents keeps it short of perfect.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above that by defining the two least self-explanatory ranking fields: net_money_flow as signed net inflow/outflow and buyer_power as the individual buyer-vs-seller average-size ratio. Fields like queue_value and volume_vs_avg in the sort enum remain unexplained.

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 verb and resource with scope: rank all listed stocks (~750) by a named set of metrics. It also delineates siblings by naming br_market_top as the Mofid equivalent and br_stock for single-symbol follow-up, so an agent can pick this tool 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 concrete user-question triggers ("biggest gainers today", "most traded", "where is money entering") plus a source constraint (Agah only; Mofid rankings live in br_market_top). The next-step routing to br_stock for a single symbol is explicit rather than left to inference.

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