list_congress_tradesDisclosed House and Senate trades, newest first, each linked to its disclosure. Committee overlap is reported as oversight, never as an accusation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many trades to return. | |
| since | No | ISO date; only records on or after it. | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from a previous call. | |
| ticker | No | Restrict to one ticker, e.g. TSLA. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses ordering (newest first), linking to disclosures, and the crucial interpretive stance that committee overlap is reported as oversight, not accusation. This adds significant context for the agent's appropriate use of results.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable context about disclosure links and the non-accusatory framing without 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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects: scope, ordering, and linkage. It does not detail return fields or pagination behavior, but the schema already includes cursor logic, so completeness is strong.
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?
Input schema covers all four parameters with full descriptions (limit, since, cursor, ticker), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it lists disclosed House and Senate trades, newest first, and distinguishes from sibling list_insider_trades by specifying Congress-specific scope. The verb 'Disclosed' combined with the resource makes the action unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing congressional trades) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the context is self-evident and differentiates adequately, it earns a 4.
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.
get_composite and get_consensus both return per-ticker consensus with dimension breakdowns, creating ambiguity; agents might call the wrong one. Other tools are clearly distinct, but this overlap requires extra care.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern: get_ for single entities, list_ for collections, and rank/search/screen as action verbs. The pattern is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
15 tools is well-scoped for a market intelligence server, covering single-ticker queries, lists, discovery, and market-level signals without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers core workflows: ticker resolution, consensus, evidence, trades, positioning, screening, and market signals. Minor gaps exist (e.g., historical consensus or direct ticker comparison), but they are not critical.