Retrieve historical shares sold short for a stock ticker by settlement date, including share counts and optional date filters.
Short interest history for a stock ticker: one row per settlement date with shares sold short and related figures (share counts, not dollars). On the free tier, history is limited to the last 12 months; older dates are clipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does fairly well: it discloses the granularity of the result, the units ('share counts, not dollars'), and an important behavioral limit (free tier clips history older than 12 months). It still omits whether the call is read-only, pagination/row limits, and any auth or rate-limit behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, and the payoff (what you get back) is front-loaded before the free-tier caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description's explanation of the returned rows and the tier-based truncation is valuable and mostly sufficient for the return side. However, with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the undefined start/end semantics leave a real gap for an agent trying to call it 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for start/end/ticker, and it does not. The date range parameters get no format, timezone, or default-behavior explanation, and only 'ticker' is self-evident from the sentence.
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?
It names a specific verb+resource (short interest history for a ticker) and describes the returned row shape ('one row per settlement date with shares sold short and related figures'). That is clearly distinguishable from insiders/cot/prices_daily, though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5 by the rubric's sibling-differentiation bar.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to obtain short interest data for a ticker, and the free-tier clipping note gives a practical constraint. There is no statement of when to prefer this over a sibling tool (e.g., cot) and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.