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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: returns latest snapshot, days_back is informational, and includes changes vs prior period. This goes beyond annotations, though no mention of rate limits or authentication is needed given read-only nature.
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 concise, front-loading the purpose, and uses a clear args list. It avoids verbosity, though the args section could be slightly more integrated. Every sentence adds value.
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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: data returned, parameter meanings, and behavioral trait (latest snapshot). Minor gaps exist (e.g., default behavior when ticker is empty), but overall complete enough.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining ticker as an optional filter and days_back as informational (does not affect result). This provides meaningful guidance beyond schema, though formatting details are absent.
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 retrieves short interest data and lists specific metrics (short ratio, days-to-cover, etc.), with a clear verb-resource pair. It is distinct from sibling tools, which deal with insider trades, filings, and other financial 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 implies usage for obtaining short interest data but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though siblings are unrelated.
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 targets a distinct regulatory filing or financial data type with clear, non-overlapping descriptions. Even similar concepts like 13F holdings vs. delta are well-differentiated.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_<noun>' pattern, with a single exception 'detect_insider_cluster'. Overall naming is predictable and readable.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but justified by the broad domain of regulatory filings and financial data. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The server covers a comprehensive set of regulatory filings (13F, Form 4, 8K, etc.) and additional financial data (analyst targets, options, short interest). Minor gaps like Form 144 are acceptable given the scope.