Largest Short Volume by Day

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, so the burden is lower, and the description still adds real context: the underlying data source (FINRA daily short sale files), the definition of Short % as FINRA-facility/TRF off-exchange share, and the interpretive baseline that 40-50% is normal market-making. It does not discuss pagination limits itself (deferred to the schema), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and scope come first, followed by disambiguation and then the tuning tip. The parenthetical sibling list is long but each reference earns its place; only the nested asides make it slightly heavier than ideal.

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 read-only ranked-list tool with full schema coverage and a declared readOnly annotation, this covers purpose, source, metric interpretation, and alternatives. The only gap is that returned row fields are never described, though with no output schema that omission is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so 3 is the floor; the description goes beyond the schema by calling out the cross-parameter interaction (sortBy=shortPercent requires a minTotalVolume floor or illiquid names dominate) and by framing the date default. That interaction guidance is the main added semantic value.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource+scope: the largest daily short-sale-volume securities (including ETFs) for a single trading day, sourced from FINRA's daily short sale volume files, sorted descending. It explicitly distinguishes itself from position-based siblings (GetShortInterest, GetShortInterestSnapshot) and the single-security GetShortVolume.

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?

Routes the agent away from this tool with named alternatives and the condition that selects each: positions -> GetShortInterest/GetShortInterestSnapshot, squeeze candidates -> GetShortSqueezeScores, per-security history -> GetShortVolume. It also states the internal alternative (sortBy=shortPercent plus a minTotalVolume floor) for ranking by intensity rather than raw size.

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