Gemral Edge

Policy-Affected Companies

get_policy_affected_companies

Quarter-over-quarter rate of change in disclosed federal lobbying expenditures mapping corporate policy influence, executive agency actions, and regulatory shifts directly to equities.

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_policy_affected_companies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Title contains (max 120 chars)
`document_number`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows some safety context already. The description adds no behavioral detail such as why it is not read-only, whether it has side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is jargon-dense and not front-loaded with a clear action. The structure reads more like marketing copy than an actionable tool definition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The output schema and annotations exist, but the description still leaves important gaps: it does not clarify usage relative to siblings, does not explain the undocumented document_number parameter, and does not address the non-read-only annotation. For a policy screening tool in a large toolset, this is insufficient context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: query has a schema description, but document_number is undocumented. The tool description does not mention either parameter, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies a policy/lobbying-expenditure theme and equities mapping, but it is written as a dense noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. An agent can infer that it relates to policy-affected companies, but it does not explicitly say what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings such as get_company_exposure or get_beneficiary_tickers.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. It implies a policy-influence use case but leaves routing entirely to inference.

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.