Live gold prices on Iranian platforms

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: partial failure is tolerated (`failed` lists non-responders while the rest still return), and platform fees (~0.5%) are excluded from quoted prices. The annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so this is solid supplementary disclosure, though staleness/caching behavior for 'live' data is not stated.

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 what is compared and against which platforms, then explains output fields and the alternative tool. Dense but every sentence carries information; minor awkwardness from mid-sentence line breaks and the parenthetical fee detail keeps it just short of ideal.

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 supplies the field vocabulary an agent needs (`buy`, `sell`, `best_to_buy`, `best_to_sell`, `failed`) and explains sort order. Nothing essential for calling or interpreting the tool 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to clarify — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends its words on output shape instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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 (compare) and resource (live 18k melted-gold price) with concrete named sources and a unit (Toman per gram). An agent can distinguish it from the gold_milli_history sibling immediately, and the description even names that sibling as the alternative for a different need.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the live cross-platform snapshot and routes trend questions (day/week/month for Milli.gold) to gold_milli_history. It also notes the Taline geo-restriction, which is a practical precondition for interpreting results.

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