get_trade_feedGet recently disclosed congressional stock trades from CTA's records, with optional filters for politician, ticker, party, chamber, and transaction type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| party | No | Filter by party | |
| ticker | No | Filter by ticker symbol | |
| chamber | No | Filter by chamber | |
| tx_type | No | Filter by transaction type | |
| politician | No | Case-insensitive partial match on the member name, e.g. "Pelosi" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (CTA records) and that results are 'recently disclosed,' which is some context, but it never states ordering, how fresh 'recent' is, whether the call is read-only, or what the response looks like.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then the filter list. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
The definition is minimally complete: six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It explains what the tool fetches and what can be filtered, but leaves out return format, default ordering, and the recency window, which an agent would need to use it confidently alongside the many sibling trade tools.
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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the politician partial-match example. The description only enumerates the filters at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.
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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Get recently disclosed congressional stock trades from CTA's records' — and names the five filter dimensions. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_member_trades or get_trades_by_ticker.
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 phrase 'with optional filters' implies the tool is a general browsing endpoint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over get_member_trades, get_trades_by_ticker, or get_committee_trading. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.