quiver_lobbyingCorporate lobbying disclosures for — federal lobbying spend filed by a public company, with client, amount, date, and issue. Example: quiver_lobbying({ ticker: "GOOGL", _apiKey: "your-key" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Stock ticker to look up lobbying for, e.g. "GOOGL" (required) | |
| _apiKey | Yes | Quiver Quantitative API key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-quiver-api-key",
+ "ticker": "GOOGL"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-quiver-api-key",
+ "ticker": "META"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare safe read operation. Description adds the return fields (client, amount, date, issue), but doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like authentication or data freshness. Adequate given annotation coverage.
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?
Single sentence with example, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and key details.
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 two-parameter lookup tool with comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose and returned fields. Lacks output schema but is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description reiterates ticker usage in example but adds no new semantic detail beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves corporate lobbying disclosures for a stock ticker, with specific fields (client, amount, date, issue). Distinguishes from sibling tools like quiver_congress_trading by focusing on lobbying spend.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other quiver tools). Only provides an example but no context about selection or exclusion criteria.
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.