[Regulatory Filings] Retrieve short interest data — short ratio, days-to-cover, % of float short, changes vs prior period.
Args: ticker: Optional ticker filter days_back: Informational; actor returns latest reported short interest snapshot
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | ||
| days_back | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds clarity that the 'days_back' parameter is informational and that the 'actor returns latest reported short interest snapshot', which guides expectations beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a brief Args section. Every part is necessary and front-loaded with the core 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?
Given the simple input schema, lack of output schema, and presence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and how parameters behave. It is complete for this 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations: 'ticker: Optional ticker filter' and 'days_back: Informational; actor returns latest reported short interest snapshot'. This adds value beyond the raw parameter names and types.
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 'Retrieve short interest data' with specific metrics (short ratio, days-to-cover, % of float short, changes vs prior period), making the tool's purpose very clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'regulatory-filings__get_form_4_insider_trades' which cover different regulatory data.
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 implicitly indicates usage for obtaining short interest data but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.