Search for House trading activity by Representative name with the FMP House Trades by Name API. Access detailed information on trades made by specific Representatives, including trade dates, assets, amounts, and potential conflicts of interest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Representative name (first or last name) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (trade dates, assets, amounts, potential conflicts of interest), which is useful. However, it does not describe matching behavior (e.g., exact vs partial name), pagination, or potential rate limits, leaving gaps for a search tool.
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 concise sentences, front-loading the verb and resource in the first sentence. The second sentence lists key output fields. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields. While it doesn't mention sibling tools or usage exclusions, the tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers purpose and output content adequately.
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 100% with the parameter 'name' described as 'Representative name (first or last name)'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; there is no additional clarification about name formats or matching rules.
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 'Search for House trading activity by Representative name', which specifies the verb 'Search', the resource 'House trading activity', and the parameter 'name'. This distinguishes it from siblings like getHouseTrades (which lists all trades) and getSenateTradesByName (which covers Senate).
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 implies use when you need House trades by a specific Representative's name, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using getHouseTrades for all trades or getSenateTradesByName for Senate activity.
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.