Skip to main content
Glama

equibles

by io.github.daniel3303

Market-Wide Short Interest Snapshot

GetShortInterestSnapshot
Read-only

Market-wide snapshot of the latest FINRA bi-monthly short interest settlement — one row per stock, sorted by days to cover (descending) by default. FINRA caps days to cover at 999.99: capped rows are a sentinel (almost always illiquid names with a tiny average-daily-volume denominator) and are ranked after real readings; pass minAvgDailyVolume (e.g. 100000) to drop illiquid names entirely. This is the raw FINRA snapshot — for genuine short-squeeze candidate ranking use GetShortSqueezeScores; for one stock's history use GetShortInterest; for daily short-sale flow use GetShortVolume/GetLargestShortVolume.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNoNumber of ranked results to skip before returning rows — pass the previous call's last row number to page past the maxResults cap (default: 0)
sortByNoSort key: daysToCover (default; FINRA-capped 999.99 sentinel rows ranked last), shortPosition, or change (largest increase in short position first)daysToCover
maxResultsNoMaximum number of results to return (default: 50, max: 500)
minDaysToCoverNoMinimum days to cover filter (default: 0)
minAvgDailyVolumeNoMinimum average daily share volume — set a floor (e.g. 100000) to drop illiquid names whose days-to-cover is inflated by a tiny volume denominator (default: 0 = no floor)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds significant behavioral context: FINRA caps days to cover at 999.99, capped rows are sentinel and ranked after real readings, default sort order, and the rationale behind the minAvgDailyVolume filter. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, ~70 words. Front-loaded with purpose, then sentinel caveat, then filtering tip, then sibling alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides enough context: data source (FINRA bi-monthly), row granularity (one per stock), default sort, sentinel behavior, filter recommendation, and alternative tools. An agent can confidently select and invoke the tool without further clarification.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds interpretive meaning for minAvgDailyVolume (drop illiquid names with inflated days-to-cover) and explains the sentinel cap affecting sortBy/default behavior. It doesn't explicitly discuss offset/maxResults semantics, but the schema descriptions already cover those, making the extra description a bonus.

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?

Opens with 'Market-wide snapshot of the latest FINRA bi-monthly short interest settlement' — a specific resource and scope. Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming GetShortSqueezeScores, GetShortInterest, GetShortVolume, and GetLargestShortVolume as alternatives for different use cases.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use/not-use guidance: 'for genuine short-squeeze candidate ranking use GetShortSqueezeScores; for one stock's history use GetShortInterest; for daily short-sale flow use GetShortVolume/GetLargestShortVolume.' Also advises passing minAvgDailyVolume to drop illiquid names.

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

All equibles toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that cross-reference related alternatives. A few near-duplicate names could cause misselection, notably SearchDocument versus SearchDocuments and GetCftcPositioning versus GetLatestCftcPositioning.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a VerbNoun camelCase pattern: Get for retrievals, Search for discovery, List/Read for document access, and Add/Close/Remove/Update/Watch/Create/Delete for portfolio mutations. Despite the large count, there is no mixing of naming conventions or unpredictable verb styles.

Tool Count1/5

108 tools is an extreme surface area, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and well past the 25+ threshold. Even for a broad financial data platform, this creates a heavy selection burden and substantial context overhead for agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually wide domain: prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, options, insider activity, 13F holdings, short interest, macro data, funds, IPOs, and full portfolio lifecycle management. Notable gaps remain, such as a basic company profile/ticker-resolution tool, dividend history, and analyst estimates, so it is not a perfect 5.

Resources