get_short_interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('get') and specifies returned fields, but does not disclose idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with core function, then application context. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or fluff. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Description covers the main purpose and provides interpretation thresholds, but lacks output schema details, error conditions, or data freshness. For a simple single-parameter tool, it is minimally complete but has room for improvement.

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% with parameter 'ticker' already described in schema. Description adds context about what ticker is used for (get short interest data), but no additional semantic detail about parameter format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: get short interest data for a ticker, listing specific fields (short % of float, days to cover, delta). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on short interest, a unique niche among diverse tools like get_fda_activity or get_insider_transactions.

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?

Description explicitly mentions use cases for detecting SHORT_INTEREST_SPIKE and SHORT_SQUEEZE_POTENTIAL with thresholds, providing clear context. However, it does not compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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