uw_shorts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds value by disclosing the multiple action types (data, ftds, etc.) and that each requires a ticker, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 reasonably concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and bulleted actions, but each action repeats 'ticker required' unnecessarily. It is well-structured but could be more efficient.

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?

Despite low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fails to explain how to provide the required ticker, which is critical for using the tool. This omission makes the description incomplete for an AI agent.

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% (no parameters), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing actions and stating ticker is required, but there is a mismatch: the schema lacks a ticker parameter. This confusion reduces the helpfulness of the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool provides UnusualWhales short selling data and lists specific actions (data, ftds, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other data types. However, it fails to explain how to specify the required ticker since the input schema has no parameters, creating ambiguity.

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 usage for short selling data through its verb and listed actions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uw_options, uw_darkpool) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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