detect_pump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It explains the scanning logic (volume spike > 3x, price surge > 20%, multiple circuit days) and the return structure (pump_probability, red_flags, verdict + recommendation). However, it omits details about data sources, error cases, or how the probability is computed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 well-organized with clear sections for scan patterns, returns, and arguments. The inclusion of the quoted statistic ('9 out of 10 times') adds illustrative flair but is not essential to tool operation, making it slightly less concise than 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, detection logic, outputs, and parameter meaning. It does not address edge cases or potential errors, but that is acceptable for a straightforward analysis tool with a well-defined output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'symbol: NSE symbol (most useful for small/micro caps)'. This adds meaningful context about the expected value and the target market segment, though it does not provide example symbol formats.

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 opens with 'Detect pump-and-dump operator activity in an NSE stock', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further distinguishes itself by listing concrete pump patterns (volume spike, price surge, circuit days) that are unique compared to sibling tools like detect_unusual_activity.

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 provides clear usage context by noting the tool is 'most useful for small/micro caps' and includes a realistic scenario ('This microcap hit 3 upper circuits in a week'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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