politics_timelineGet the full origin timeline for a politician — every page snapshot, every position change, every data source with hash proof. The political wayback machine. Shows what changed, when, and where the data came from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Official ID | |
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the output content: every snapshot, every position change, sources with hash proof, and the 'wayback machine' concept. This goes beyond annotations by explaining what the timeline contains and its provenance nature, though it does not address pagination or response size.
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 three concise sentences that front-load the core action, add a vivid metaphor, and elaborate on the output. There is no wasted language; each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and outcome.
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 explains the tool's value proposition well for a read-only timeline endpoint, covering what the timeline shows and its data sources. However, with no output schema and multiple sibling tools, it could benefit from clarifying how this differs from politics_changes or politics_origin, but overall it is largely complete.
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 describes 'id' as 'Official ID' and gives 'limit' a default but no description. The description does not explain either parameter explicitly. The phrase 'full origin timeline' might imply limit caps entries, but that is an inference. With 50% schema coverage and no compensating parameter explanation in the description, it adds little value over 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 retrieves 'the full origin timeline for a politician' with specific contents: every page snapshot, every position change, and every data source with hash proof. The 'political wayback machine' metaphor reinforces its archival purpose. This distinguishes it from siblings like politics_origin or politics_changes by focusing on the complete timeline with provenance.
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 implies use when needing a historical audit trail of a politician's data with source verification, stating 'Shows what changed, when, and where the data came from.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to use sibling tools like politics_changes or politics_provenance, so it scores just below the explicit level.
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.