anti_fraud_reportDetect fraud risks in a stock through deep analysis, returning a complete seven-part JSON report: meta, overview, anomaly, barrier, crossCheck, verdict, and sentiment.
对指定股票执行反诈深度分析，返回完整的7块REPORT JSON（meta/overview/anomaly/barrier/crossCheck/verdict/sentiment）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | 股票代码，如 002598 | |
| concept | No | 概念名称，如 钠电池 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
由于没有任何 annotations，描述承担了行为透明度的全部责任。它披露了返回“完整的7块REPORT JSON”这一输出行为，但未说明操作是否只读、数据来源、延迟或失败风险。反诈分析和报告性质暗示非破坏性，但未明确声明。
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?
整个描述只有一句话，动作、对象和输出契约都前置呈现，没有冗余。列举7个报告模块虽有细节但都是有效信息，结构紧凑。
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?
输入参数由 schema 完整覆盖，输出又有 output schema 说明返回结构，因此描述无需再解释返回值细节。对这类单一报告类工具，描述已经足够完整，但还缺少一句关于何时优先于其他诊断工具的引导。
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?
输入 schema 的 description coverage 为100%，因此参数语义基线为3。描述仅重复了“指定股票”，没有对 symbol 或 concept 参数增加额外语义，例如 concept 如何影响报告内容。
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?
描述明确说明了动作“执行反诈深度分析”和作用对象“指定股票”，并具体列出返回的7块REPORT JSON结构。这使它明显区别于其他股票分析类兄弟工具，用途非常清晰。
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?
描述隐含了使用场景：当用户需要对某只股票进行反诈深度分析时使用。但没有明确说明与兄弟工具（如 composite_stock_diagnostic、market_anomaly_scan）的选择边界，也没有给出何时不应使用该工具。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.