get_us_short

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value beyond that by disclosing the FINRA bi-monthly reporting cycle and the 2–4 week data staleness, plus an explicit instruction to verify 'date_short_interest'. 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.

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

The description is front-loaded with the core definition, followed by example queries, a prominent staleness warning, and an Args line. It is concise overall, though the phrase 'US short interest' appears redundantly in the first sentence.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, and the key data-freshness caveat. The instruction to check 'date_short_interest' is exactly the operational detail an agent needs; nothing critical is missing.

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 only parameter, 'ticker', has zero schema description coverage, but the description compensates by labeling it 'US 티커' and providing examples like AAPL and GME. This is adequate for a simple single-symbol string parameter, though it does not cover format edge cases such as delisted tickers or exchange suffixes.

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 explicitly names the resource ('US short interest') and lists the returned components ('공매도 잔고 + % of float + days to cover'). It also gives concrete example queries ('AAPL short interest', 'GME 공매도', 'short squeeze'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the many other US market tools.

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 gives clear trigger examples and a critical usage condition: FINRA data is stale by 2–4 weeks and the agent must check 'date_short_interest'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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