Get detailed trading history of a specific U.S. Congress member. Shows individual trades with transaction types, amounts, and disclosure dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| member | Yes | Member slug (e.g. 'nancy-pelosi', 'dan-crenshaw'). Use get_congress_trades or search to find exact slugs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must bear the burden. It mentions what the output includes (trades, types, amounts, dates) but omits behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. The pagination parameters (page, limit) are not mentioned in the description.
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, clear and front-loaded. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states the tool returns trades with details but lacks information about pagination, error handling, or full scope of output. For a 3-parameter tool, more context would be beneficial.
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 coverage is 33% (only `member` described). The description adds little beyond schema: it repeats 'specific U.S. Congress member' but doesn't clarify `page` or `limit`. The `member` parameter description within schema is helpful, but the main description doesn't elaborate further.
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 gets 'detailed trading history of a specific U.S. Congress member,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `get_congress_trades` (which likely covers all members) by focusing on a specific member.
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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when you have a specific member slug, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.
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 targets a distinct resource and action, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate similar pairs (e.g., get_congress_member vs get_congress_trades, get_crypto_holder vs get_crypto_holders). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
The dominant pattern is get_<noun>, with list_<noun> for enumerations. Minor deviations exist: a bare 'search' tool and the 'sec_' prefix on SEC filing tools break the uniform verb_noun style, but the pattern remains predictable.
At 24 tools, this is on the heavier side, but the server spans multiple financial data domains (SEC filings, stocks, insider trading, crypto, rates, economics), so each tool has a clear purpose. It is just below the 'too many' threshold.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for financial data retrieval: SEC filing lifecycle is covered (list -> index -> document), institutional ownership is available from both stock and institution perspectives, and insider/congress/crypto/economic data are all present. No obvious gaps or dead ends.