get_short_interest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key metrics returned (short ratio, % of float, shares short, change, squeeze risk score) and explains the risk score thresholds. It does not mention destructive aspects (none exist) but could note data availability constraints (e.g., US stocks only, mentioned in schema but not description).

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 excessively long with educational content (e.g., famous short squeezes, why it matters) that is not needed for tool invocation. It could be trimmed to 2-3 sentences plus a list of return fields. The first sentence is effective, but the rest is verbose.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields and provides context for the squeeze risk score. It covers what an agent needs to understand the output, though it could mention the data source or update frequency.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add much beyond the schema; it explains the meaning of output metrics but not parameter-specific details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 it tracks short interest metrics like short ratio, days to cover, and squeeze potential. The first line effectively conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the function is distinct enough.

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 example use cases (e.g., 'What's the short interest for Tesla?') that imply when to use it. However, it does not offer exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, which would help an agent decide between this and tools like get_quote or get_historical_data.

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