politics_methodologyGet the full transparency methodology — how we collect, assess, extract, sign, and verify political data. Includes quality assessment algorithm (signals + weights), trust levels, data sources, cron schedule, and what we can and cannot prove. Open and auditable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it details what content is included (algorithm, signals, weights, trust levels, sources, schedule) and explicitly discloses limitations ('what we can and cannot prove'). This enriches the agent's understanding of the informational output.
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 only two sentences but packs significant detail: the core purpose, a list of contents, and a clarification of its openness. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause adds value without 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains exactly what the tool returns (methodology details) and its limitations, so an agent can decide to call it without any further 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is moot. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description compensates by explaining the nature of the returned information, which is all the parameter semantics an agent needs in this case.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('full transparency methodology'). It enumerates concrete contents (collection, assessment, extraction, signing, verification, algorithm, trust levels, sources, schedule, limitations), making it distinct from sibling tools like provenance or origin.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever one needs the complete methodology or documentation of how political data is processed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique nature of a methodology reference tool, the context is sufficient.
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.