Veroq

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses COST (2 credits) and RETURN structure (member name, party, state, chamber, ticker, etc.) compensating for missing output schema. Missing time bounds for 'recent' trades and pagination behavior, but covers financial cost and data shape.

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?

Excellent structured formatting with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). No wasted words; every sentence delivers distinct value (purpose, usage context, return payload, pricing, invocation pattern).

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, description adequately compensates by detailing return fields and cost. However, 'recent' is undefined (temporal scope unclear), and no mention of data latency or volume limits prevents a 5.

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 complete parameter documentation ('Ticker symbol to filter by...Omit for all recent congressional trades'). Description reinforces filtering concept and provides JSON example, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the well-documented schema. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + clear resource 'stock trades by members of U.S. Congress' + data source 'public disclosure filings'. Unambiguously distinguishes from sibling veroq_insider (corporate insiders) and generic filing tools by specifying congressional scope.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section defines context ('track congressional trading activity — politically-informed trading signals') and filtering capability. Lacks explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., 'use veroq_insider for corporate insiders') or exclusion criteria, but usage context is clearly demarcated.

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