veroq_congress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation returns trades with specific fields (member name, party, etc.) and costs 2 credits. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not fully rich.

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 succinct: two sentences covering purpose, usage, return format, cost, and an example. It is well-structured with labeled sections, containing zero unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what is returned, the cost, and a concrete example. There are no gaps.

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?

The only parameter (symbol) has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The description reinforces optionality and provides an example. It does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema, earning a 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?

The description clearly states it 'Get recent stock trades by members of U.S. Congress', using a specific verb and a distinct resource (congressional trades). This tool is unique among siblings (e.g., veroq_insider, veroq_ticker_news) as it focuses exclusively on political trading signals.

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?

It explicitly states 'WHEN TO USE: To track congressional trading activity — politically-informed trading signals' and advises filtering by ticker. While it does not provide negative guidance or list alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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