Daily Short Sale Volume

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: volumes cover FINRA off-exchange/TRF trades only, not consolidated tape, and a 40-50% Short % is a normal baseline from market-maker liquidity. These are non-obvious data quirks that prevent misinterpretation.

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 primary purpose and then layers essential caveats and alternatives without wasted words. Every sentence contributes either scoping, warning, or disambiguation value.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names the return fields (short volume, short-exempt volume, total volume, short volume percentage per trading day). Combined with the data-source caveat and sibling disambiguation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents ticker, startDate, endDate, and maxResults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get daily short sale volume history for an exact stock or ETF listing') and immediately scopes it to FINRA short sale volume files. It explicitly distinguishes this daily flow metric from related tools like GetShortInterest, GetLargestShortVolume, and GetShortSqueezeScores.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives and their distinct purposes: 'use GetShortInterest for positions, GetLargestShortVolume for a market-wide single-day ranking, and GetShortSqueezeScores for squeeze candidates.' It also warns against misquoting the metric as a share of total traded volume.

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