get_pledge_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the computation logic (pledge %, QoQ change), risk thresholds, and returns. However, it omits important behavioral details such as data freshness, error handling, or whether data is real-time/delayed. The marketing quote ('Caught 3 stocks...') adds little behavioral value.

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-structured with a clear headline, threshold list, and Args/Returns sections. It is not overly long, but the marketing quote and the explanatory paragraph about pledge mechanics are somewhat extraneous for an agent and could be trimmed without losing essential usage information.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, inputs, outputs, and risk assessment logic. It is fairly complete, though it could mention data source or limitations, and it does not differentiate from related scanning tools. Overall, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 only defines 'symbol' as a string, but the Args section provides meaningful elaboration: examples (ADANIENT, ZEEL), format (NSE symbol), and scope ('any stock'). This significantly augments the minimal schema, making it clear what the agent should pass.

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 is a 'promoter pledge early warning' tool for NSE stocks, checking pledge percentage and QoQ change velocity. It also provides specific risk levels, distinguishing it from generic pledge data tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like promoter_pledge or scan_pledge_risks, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 by explaining the risk mechanism and what it checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over promoter_pledge or scan_pledge_risks, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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