Gemral Edge

Congressional Trading Leaderboard

get_leaderboard

Members of the U.S. Congress ranked by estimated returns on their publicly disclosed stock trades over a chosen window, with top holdings and filing coverage. Sourced from STOCK Act disclosures. Read-only evidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_leaderboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	No		1y

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Congressional trading leaderboard rows (public columns only).
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description asserts 'Read-only evidence,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the stated side-effect profile conflicts with the structured metadata. Beyond that clash, it does add useful sourcing context (STOCK Act disclosures) and notes the leaderboard includes filing coverage, but the direct contradiction with the annotation drops this to the floor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the ranking and scope, the data source second. No filler, though the trailing 'Read-only evidence' fragment is both wasteful and misleading given annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, so this is close to adequate. However, 'estimated returns' is left undefined (method, units, whether ranking is descending) and 'filing coverage' is unexplained — an agent can call it, but cannot interpret or caveat the results accurately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single optional 'window' parameter with an enum and a default, and the schema carries zero description coverage. The description says 'over a chosen window,' which signals the parameter's role and time-scoping semantics, but it doesn't clarify what '1w'/'1m'/'1y'/'all' measure relative to filing dates (trade date vs. disclosure date) — a meaningful gap for STOCK Act data where disclosures lag.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (U.S. Congress members), the ranking basis (estimated returns on disclosed stock trades), the scope (chosen window), and the payload (top holdings and filing coverage). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_actor_profile or search_accountability_people, which are person-lookup oriented rather than ranking oriented.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: it is the thing to call when you want a ranked list over a window. The description never says when to prefer this over get_actor_profile, get_track_record, or search_accountability_people for the same congressional-trading data, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Gemral Edge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.