get_pledge_alert

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

No annotations are provided, but the description explains the tool's logic (checks pledge % and QoQ change), defines risk levels, and describes the return fields. It adds context about the margin call risk. However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation.

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 informative with sections for purpose, risk levels, example, and returns. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and risk context. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it lacks mention of error handling or limitations.

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?

The single parameter 'symbol' is described as 'NSE symbol (e.g. ADANIENT, ZEEL, any stock)', which adds meaning beyond the schema's title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates.

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 clearly states it provides 'Promoter pledge early warning for an NSE stock' and explains it checks pledge percentage and QoQ change velocity, with defined risk levels. This differentiates it from siblings like 'promoter_pledge' (raw data) and 'scan_pledge_risks' (scanning multiple stocks).

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 usage for a single stock early warning but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like 'promoter_pledge' or 'scan_pledge_risks'. No when-not-to guidance is provided.

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