SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Short interest history for a Nasdaq-listed stock

finance_nasdaq_short_interest

Read-only

Short interest history for a Nasdaq-listed stock from Nasdaq.com (FINRA twice-monthly settlement data): settlement date, shares sold short, average daily share volume and days to cover, newest first (about one year of reports), plus the change versus the previous report. Only Nasdaq-listed symbols are supported by the source. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_ofr_short_term_funding_monitor when you need OFR Short-term Funding Monitor daily series from the US. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "finance_nasdaq_short_interest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Reports to return, 1 to 24 (default 12)
`symbol`	Yes	Nasdaq-listed ticker, e.g. AAPL, NVDA

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`latest`	No
`source`	No
`symbol`	No
`reports`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`changeVsPrevious`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses provenance (Nasdaq.com, FINRA twice-monthly settlement data), result ordering (newest first), approximate coverage (~one year), the derived change field, and a paid-call model with pricing and the fact that failed calls are not charged. The billing disclosure in particular is context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core capability is front-loaded in the first clause, and the parenthetical provenance and pricing details are appended rather than buried. It is dense — the awkward transition "Related tools on this server, for a different need" could be tightened — but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining agent questions are source, coverage window, ordering, eligibility and cost — all of which the description answers. Nothing material is left to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only indirectly adds meaning — the twice-monthly cadence and "about one year of reports" implicitly explain why limit tops out at 24. That is a useful but marginal addition over the schema's own "1 to 24 (default 12)".

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (short interest history for a Nasdaq-listed stock) and enumerates the exact fields returned: settlement date, shares sold short, average daily share volume, days to cover, plus change versus the previous report. That level of specificity makes it distinguishable from any other finance_* sibling at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a real constraint ("Only Nasdaq-listed symbols are supported by the source") and explicitly routes to an alternative (finance_ofr_short_term_funding_monitor) for a different need. What is missing is any guidance on the trade-off around the limit parameter or when to prefer other short-interest sources, but the when/when-not framing is present.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?