promoter_pledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions data sources (NSE free vs Screener.in Pro paid) but does not disclose whether the tool requires authentication, pricing, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The risk explanation is useful but does not cover tool behavior.

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 logically structured: purpose, data source, risk implication, output fields, parameter, examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the risk explanation adds some verbosity. Overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values—but it still lists output fields, which is helpful. Missing edge cases or error handling for invalid symbols, but sufficient for typical use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'symbol'. The description compensates by clearly stating it is an NSE stock symbol and providing examples (RELIANCE, TCS, ADANIENT), which adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns promoter pledge percentage and risk signals for a stock symbol, with a list of output fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pledge_alert' or 'scan_pledge_risks', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 the tool is for checking promoter pledge risk but does not specify when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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