get_us_short

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It prominently warns that data is 2-4 weeks stale due to FINRA bi-monthly reporting, and advises checking the 'date_short_interest' field. This is a critical behavioral trait for agents. No other behavioral issues are mentioned, but the warning covers the key risk.

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 and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then usage examples, followed by a critical warning, and ending with parameter definition. It is efficient with no redundant information, though the title is missing.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description covers purpose, usage, staleness, and parameter adequately. It could mention whether data is point-in-time or historical, but the output schema likely contains that. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 parameter description only adds 'US 티커' (US ticker) for the ticker parameter, which is minimal and does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. It lacks examples (e.g., 'AAPL') or format details, relying on the tool name to imply US focus. More would be needed for the agent to use it correctly.

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 it retrieves US short interest data, specifying metrics like % of float and days to cover. Example queries (AAPL short interest, GME 공매도, short squeeze) further clarify the tool's specific function, distinguishing it from sibling tools that lack short interest focus.

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 clear usage examples and an important staleness warning, guiding when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context and sibling tools imply no direct alternative for short interest, making the guidance adequate.

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