screener_house_trades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output fields and nullable columns (owner and disclosure_date) with rationale, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or whether data is current or delayed, leaving gaps for behavioral insight.

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 a concise two-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary function and then details output columns. It is dense with relevant information and avoids 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and output fields. However, it lacks guidance on pagination or how to handle large result sets, and it doesn't mention any potential performance implications for the 20000 limit.

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%, so the schema documents 'limit' and 'format' with defaults and ranges. The description adds context by listing output fields implied by the tool's purposeasmaior, but it does not describe parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 plus slight credit for output field clarification.

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 that the tool screens House of Representatives trades and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes from 'house_trades_by_ticker' and 'screener_senate_trades' by specifying it is a screener for House trades, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the by_ticker sibling.

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 usage for screening trades across all tickers, and the schema's req description says 'no market/region filter'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'house_trades_by_ticker' (e.g., when no ticker filter is needed) or provide any exclusions.

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