get_short_interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (fetching metrics) and the specific metrics, but does not add details like data source, update frequency, or any access limitations. The behavior is straightforward and not misleading, but the disclosure is minimal beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence that is both concise and informative, front-loading the core action and resource, then specifying the metrics and thesis. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully-documented parameter and an output schema. The description covers the purpose, the specific metrics delivered, and the intended use case (squeeze thesis). Given the simple nature and existing schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol', including an example. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and clearly identifies the resource ('short interest metrics'), enumerating the exact metrics included (Short % of Float, Days to Cover / Short Ratio, Shares Short). This distinguishes it from other data-fetching tools by focusing specifically on short interest for squeeze analysis.

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 provides a clear use context: 'for squeeze or squeeze-fade thesis.' This implies when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Thus, it has clear context without exclusions, fitting a score of 4.

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