Short-selling pressure: FINRA daily short-volume ratio over ~20 trading days — a bearish-sentiment proxy. Daily short-sale volume, not bi-monthly short interest. Not investment advice. Cost: $0.02.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description covers data source (FINRA), time window (~20 trading days), and cost ($0.02), but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or error handling for invalid CIK. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Three concise sentences with no redundancy. Key information (what, data source, time window, cost, disclaimer) is front-loaded and well-structured.
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 single parameter and output schema existence, the description covers the tool's nature, data source, and cost adequately. Missing explanation of CIK parameter slightly reduces completeness for a data 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?
Only one parameter (cik) with no schema description. The description does not explain what CIK is or how it is used, leaving the agent to infer from context. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 the tool provides a short-selling pressure metric using FINRA daily short-volume ratio over ~20 days as a bearish-sentiment proxy. It distinguishes itself from bi-monthly short interest, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 bearish-sentiment analysis but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like insider_activity or market_insight. The disclaimer 'Not investment advice' is present but no direct usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: quality scoring, valuation, raw facts, filings, financials, peer comparison, industry aggregates, insider activity, institutional ownership, market insights, screening, short pressure, and standard scores. No overlaps in functionality.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming with descriptive prefixes (e.g., company_, buffett_, market_). The pattern is predictable and helps infer tool purpose.
14 tools cover a broad range of SEC fundamentals without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear role, and the count is appropriate for a comprehensive financial data API.
Covers core areas: filings, financials, insider trades, institutional ownership, screening, scores, and market insights. Minor gaps (e.g., no direct analyst estimates or corporate events) but overall very well-scoped for the domain.