FINRA daily short sale volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the data source, the ordering convention (oldest first), the two result modes, and a derived metric (short share of volume), which is real added context. It says nothing about units, result limits, rate limits, or freshness/update cadence of Reg SHO files.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the data is and its source, then the two usage modes. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return-value detail. It names the fields conceptually (short volume, total volume, short share) but omits units, the size of the 'largest volumes' list in the no-symbol mode, and how many days the latest-day mode covers. Adequate but with visible gaps for a tool whose return shape is otherwise undocumented.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (days default 60, max 400; symbol format incl. class shares). The description only indirectly reinforces days as a history window and symbol as the trigger for history mode; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

States the specific resource (daily short sale volume, total volume, short share of volume) and its source (FINRA Reg SHO files), which sets it apart from siblings like short_interest and fails_to_deliver. The two output modes are named. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 two modes are stated: symbol given yields history (oldest first), no symbol yields the latest day's largest short volumes. That implicitly tells the agent how to pick behavior via the optional symbol parameter. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool is offered.

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