house_trades_by_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains field semantics (e.g., date vs disclosure_date, owner codes, amount flags) and mentions that CSV returns sliced series, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only), rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The operational behavior remains opaque.

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 verbose and front-loads a full JSON schema example before any explanatory text. It is longer than necessary for a tool description, and while it is structured with field explanations, it lacks a concise summary. The detail could be more effectively placed in an output schema if provided.

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?

The complexity is moderate (nested req object, multiple output fields), and the description provides thorough documentation of output fields, but it omits the tool's core purpose, input parameter guidance, and operational context. It does not clarify that this is a read-only query tool or when to use it, leaving the description incomplete for effective use.

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 input schema includes ticker, limit, format, date_from, date_to, but the description does not explain any of these parameters. It only references CSV vs JSON in one clause ('CSV returns the sliced series') and never addresses the ticker, date bounds, or limit. Schema coverage is effectively zero for most parameters, and the description does not compensate.

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 opens with 'Normalized US House trades:' followed by a JSON-like structure, but it lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool does (e.g., 'Retrieves' or 'Lists'). The purpose is only inferred from the tool name, and the description reads more like a data dictionary than a functional description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like screener_house_trades or senate_trades_by_ticker. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided. The description is entirely about output format, not usage context.

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