get_short_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: a 50-ticker cap, the data sources (FINRA daily short-sale volume plus short-interest report), and an interpretive baseline ('market norm roughly 40-55%'). However, it says nothing about error handling for invalid tickers, data staleness/lag, or partial results, which matters for a batch retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the resource and its content before the input instruction. Every clause (metrics list, benchmark, format) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers content, limit, and input format. Only minor gaps remain (repeat vs. error behavior on bad tickers), which is acceptable for a single-parameter read tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the required input format ('comma-separated string') and the cardinality limit (up to 50 tickers). It goes beyond the bare 'type: string' schema, though it does not address spacing, case, or invalid-ticker handling.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Short pressure') and details exactly what data is returned: FINRA daily short-sale volume metrics and the latest short-interest report. No sibling tool (macro, stage, pnf, breadth, verdict, filings, calendar, usage) overlaps this retrieval, so an agent can uniquely identify it.

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 implies a use case (short-pressure analysis) but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to sibling tools, leaving usage entirely inferred.

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