politics_alignmentCompare an official's stated positions against their actual roll-call votes, per topic — what they SAY vs how they VOTED, both source-linked. Does NOT label agreement/contradiction (you judge and cite); surfaces the juxtaposition no unsigned source can. Use official id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Official ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds key behavioral traits: it does NOT label agreement/contradiction (the user judges), outputs are source-linked, and data is organized per topic. This informs the agent of important output semantics not captured in annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a clarifying caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output presentation (juxtaposition, source-linked, per topic), and what the tool avoids. It does not mention return format, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is sufficient.
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?
The schema already describes the single parameter 'id' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates 'Use official id' without adding new semantic detail, such as how the id relates to other tools or any format constraints, so it adds no significant value beyond the schema.
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 compares an official's stated positions against actual roll-call votes per topic, using the verb 'compare' and describing the output as 'juxtaposition.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT label agreement/contradiction and by emphasizing source-linked data, making the purpose specific and unique.
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 clear context on when to use: to compare an official's stated positions vs votes, and instructs to use the official id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases (e.g., politics_positions), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose covering different aspects of political data: bills (search, details, text slices, TOC), officials (details, search, by state, representation), bridge pages (create, compare, session, letter), and specialized queries (speeches, votes, positions, provenance). No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'politics_<descriptive_name>' pattern using snake_case. Verbs and nouns are combined logically (e.g., 'politics_bills_search', 'politics_candidate_feed'), with no mixing of conventions.
At 25 tools, the set is comprehensive for a political data API but slightly on the high side. However, each tool covers a specific niche (bills, officials, bridge pages, etc.), and the count is justified by the breadth of the domain. It remains manageable and well-scoped.
The tool surface covers major data types (bills, officials, candidates, speeches, votes, positions) and interaction workflows (bridge pages, watchlists). Minor gaps exist, such as missing a direct 'politician by name and state' endpoint, but the search and filtering tools compensate. Overall, the set is thorough.