list_short_volume

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data format details. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal value, but does not contradict the 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly brief given the tool's complexity (10 parameters), potentially under-specifying rather than being optimally concise.

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 annotations indicating read-only behavior and an output schema present, the description does not need to cover return values. However, it lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context for a tool with 10 parameters and 0% schema coverage, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the structured support.

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 0%, meaning parameters like 'ticker', 'date', 'limit', and 'sort' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings, usage, or constraints (e.g., date formats, ticker requirements, sort options), leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 the tool 'Retrieve short volume data for stocks,' which provides a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('short volume data for stocks'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_short_interest' or 'list_aggs,' leaving ambiguity about its specific scope or data type compared to similar tools in the list.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_short_interest' and 'list_aggs' available, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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