politics_bridge_compareCompare multiple politicians side-by-side on a bridge page — positions, party, office, campaign finance. Optionally filter to a specific topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Bridge page session hash | |
| title | No | Title for this comparison | |
| topic | No | Optional topic to focus comparison on | |
| official_ids | Yes | Array of official IDs to compare |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (all flags false) and the description does not disclose that this is a write operation (saving a comparison). The wording 'Compare' could imply read-only, which conflicts with the title and the readOnlyHint=false annotation. No disclosure of side effects or state changes.
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 a single, readable sentence with a clear list of comparison dimensions. However, the mismatch between the verb 'compare' and title 'Save' reduces its effectiveness slightly.
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 description does not explain what a 'bridge page' is, what the hash parameter represents, or what happens after saving. For a state-changing tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete and lacks necessary context.
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 all parameters (hash, title, topic, official_ids) are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the verb 'Compare' but the title says 'Save Comparison Set', creating ambiguity about the core action. It identifies the resource (politicians on a bridge page) but does not explicitly state that this tool saves/comparison sets. No differentiation from sibling bridge tools.
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?
No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like politics_bridge_create or politics_bridge_session. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this 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.
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.