Short Interest History

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

With only readOnlyHint=true available, the description carries real behavioral load: it discloses split-restated share counts vs. as-reported days-to-cover, FINRA's 999.99 cap, and critically that the model estimate appears BELOW the table and must never be presented as a FINRA figure. That last point is a non-obvious, high-value caveat absent from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and payload are front-loaded, then interpretations, alternatives, and finally the estimate caveat. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the squeeze-threshold remark and estimate caveat make the tail slightly long for a list endpoint.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does: short position, prior-settlement change, average daily volume, days to cover, plus the appended model estimate. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 coverage is 100%, so ticker, startDate, endDate and maxResults are already fully documented, including the max=500 and oldest-to-newest ordering. The description adds settlement-date context but no parameter syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Get bi-monthly short interest history ... from FINRA') and scopes it to 'an exact stock or ETF listing'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming GetShortSqueezeScores and GetShortInterestSnapshot, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit alternatives with the selecting condition: % of shares outstanding / squeeze ranking → GetShortSqueezeScores, market-wide latest settlement → GetShortInterestSnapshot. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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