Short Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: market inference logic, data sources (FINRA bi-weekly, HKEX daily), and per-market differences (US-only avg_daily_vol, days_to_cover; HK-only balance). There is no contradiction.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose and clear field breakdowns. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value (sources, per-market details, count range). Could be slightly tighter but highly effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output fields for both markets, including sources and count constraints. It covers all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool, leaving no significant gaps.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning: 'count' default 20, 'symbol' market inference from suffix. It also explains the returned data structure fields (timestamp, short_shares, rate, close) with per-market additions, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 'Get short interest history (open short positions) for HK or US stocks' with explicit differentiation from siblings like 'short_margin' and 'short_trades'. It specifies the resource (short interest history) and the action (get), distinguishing it from other short-related tools.

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 provides usage context such as 'Market inferred from symbol suffix' and 'count: 1–100 (default 20)'. While it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the sibling context and description imply this is for open short positions history, which is sufficiently clear for agents.

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