Deterministic diff (unified + structured) between two versions of a bill's extracted text. Defaults to earliest vs. latest texted version if version ids are omitted. Errors if fewer than 2 versions have extracted text. Result is labeled 'derived' (computed by Bill Commons, not an official document).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes | ||
| version_id_a | No | ||
| version_id_b | No |
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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the result is deterministic, labeled 'derived', and computed by Bill Commons (not official). It also mentions the error condition. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or the exact structure of the output.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No 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?
Given no output schema, the description covers key aspects: default behavior, error condition, and nature of the result. It could be more specific about the output format (unified + structured details), but overall it is complete for a tool with simple parameters and no annotations.
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 0%, so description compensates by explaining that version_id_a and version_id_b are optional with default behavior (earliest vs latest) and that bill_id is required. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could clarify value formats.
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 performs a deterministic diff between two bill versions, specifying 'unified + structured' output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bill_record or search_legislation, which do not compare versions.
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?
Explicitly states default behavior when version ids are omitted (earliest vs latest) and error condition (fewer than 2 versions with extracted text). This guides the agent on when and how to use the tool effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
