get_short_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Pro+ subscription requirement, the large response size (~170KB+), and the regulatory reporting source, all of which are useful behavioral traits beyond the tool's name. It does not describe the return structure, but that is partly mitigated by the large-response warning.

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 three sentences, each adding critical information: purpose, subscription requirement, and response size/data source. No redundant words and information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the data type, geographic scope, subscription requirements, and response size. It could be more complete by describing the response format or how to handle the large payload, but it is largely adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('short selling positions') with a clear scope ('all Nordic instruments'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which mention short selling positions.

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 implies when to use the tool (when short selling data is needed) but provides no explicit comparison with alternatives or exclusionary guidance. The unique domain of the tool makes its purpose clear, but the absence of when-not-to-use guidance keeps it at a mid score.

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