Returns a specific politician's stock trades or holdings.
First call get_politicians to find the politicianId.
Args:
politicianId: Politician ID from get_politicians
activity: 'trades' or 'holdings'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity | No | 'trades' or 'holdings' (default: trades) | trades |
| politicianId | Yes | Politician ID, as returned by get_politicians. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the dependency on get_politicians and the allowed values for 'activity'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives the prerequisite, and the Args list maps clearly to the parameters. No wasted words.
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, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers what it returns, how to obtain the required ID, and the two activity options. It could mention return format, but that is not required and not critical for correctness.
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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description largely repeats the schema's info (politicianId from get_politicians, activity 'trades' or 'holdings'). The only added value is reiterating the prerequisite, which is already in the schema description, so it adequately meets the 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 clearly states 'Returns a specific politician's stock trades or holdings,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling get_politicians tool by focusing on the activity (trades/holdings) of a single politician rather than listing politicians.
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?
It provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'First call get_politicians to find the politicianId.' This clearly tells the agent the required sequence. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear for this simple lookup tool.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g. get_etf_analysis vs get_etf_forecast both provide ETF analyst consensus, get_etf_holdings vs get_etf_top_stocks both list constituents, and get_portfolio_overview vs get_portfolio_performance both return returns/performance. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity in selection.
The set is largely consistent with a 'get_' prefix and descriptive nouns (get_stock_quotes, get_crypto_quote, get_dividend_history). Minor deviations include 'list_my_portfolios' instead of 'get_my_portfolios' and singular/plural variants like get_all_commodities_quotes vs get_commodity_quote, but the pattern remains predictable.
With 71 tools, the count far exceeds the 50+ threshold described as an extreme mismatch. Even though the server covers a broad financial domain, such a large surface is overwhelming for an agent and includes many redundant or highly specific tools that could be consolidated.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of TipRanks data: quotes and historical data for all major asset classes, news, earnings and economic calendars, analyst and sentiment data, financial statements, technical analysis, options, portfolios, and screeners. There are no obvious dead ends for typical financial research tasks.