get_member_voteCheck how a specific U.S. member of Congress voted on a policy by providing their Bioguide ID and the policy ID. Returns all roll call votes for that member on the given policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_id | Yes | Policy ID to check vote on | |
| bioguide_id | Yes | Bioguide ID of the member |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'all roll call votes' for that member on the policy, giving insight into the output without contradicting the annotation.
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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
For a simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context seems necessary for correct invocation.
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 both parameters described clearly. The description reiterates the purpose of the IDs but does not add much beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 the tool's purpose: checking how a specific U.S. member of Congress voted on a policy using Bioguide ID and policy ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_member and get_policy by focusing on the member's vote on a specific policy.
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 clarifies when to use the tool: when you have a specific member's Bioguide ID and a policy ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: efforts, members, policies, stories, representatives, voter info, and text retrieval. Even similar tools like get_effort and resolve_effort clearly differ in input type (ID vs natural language), and get_stories vs get_story follow the standard list/detail distinction.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lower_snake_case: get_ for retrieval, search_ for queries, and resolve_ for name resolution. Nouns are clear and descriptive, with no mixing of styles or inconsistent verbs.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a U.S. political policy tracking service. Each tool provides a distinct utility without overwhelming the surface, fitting solidly within the expected range.
The tool surface covers the core read-only workflows: searching and retrieving policies and members, resolving and retrieving efforts, listing and retrieving story bundles, and looking up representatives and voter info. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated purpose.