xoomar-mcp

FINRA short interest

short_interest

Retrieve US stock short interest by ticker, including shares short, average daily volume, days to cover, and changes by FINRA settlement date. Omit symbol for latest top days-to-cover names.

Instructions

Short interest for a US stock: shares short, average daily volume, days to cover, change, per FINRA settlement date (twice a month), newest first. Without a symbol: the latest settlement's highest days-to-cover names.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "short_interest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Rows to return (default 24)
`symbol`	No	US ticker symbol, e.g. GME. Class shares as on the SEC list, e.g. BRK-B.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the FINRA settlement cadence (twice a month), ordering (newest first), and the default behavior when symbol is omitted. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or result-size characteristics, so it falls short of exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the resource and its fields, the second covers the alternate mode. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and ordering. Combined with full schema coverage on the two optional parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly in either mode.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining what omitting the optional symbol produces — a ranked list rather than per-symbol rows. Limit semantics (default 24) remain schema-only, so it stays below 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the resource (FINRA short interest) and enumerates the returned metrics (shares short, average daily volume, days to cover, change), so an agent knows exactly what data arrives. It does not explicitly route against the adjacent FINRA datasets (short_volume, fails_to_deliver), which is the only gap keeping it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context for both invocation modes: with a symbol for one stock, without a symbol for the latest settlement's highest days-to-cover names. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, but the two modes are unambiguous.

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