fec_top_candidates

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the 'Get' verb, so there is no contradiction. Beyond annotations, the description adds that results are ranked by total money raised, but it does not disclose defaults like per_page=20, the 50-item maximum, or response structure.

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 single, focused sentence that leads with the action and key concept 'top candidates'. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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 tool is a straightforward ranked list with clear purpose, and the description covers the core behavior of ranking by fundraising for a given office/cycle. However, with no output schema, details about result fields or pagination are absent, though the simplicity makes this largely sufficient.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description only references office and election cycle, adding no additional meaning about optional state or per_page beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'top candidates', and the ranking criterion 'ranked by total money raised'. It also specifies the scope 'for a given office and election cycle', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fec_search_candidates and fec_candidate_financials.

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 cases (when you want top fundraising candidates for an office/cycle) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like fec_search_candidates or fec_candidate_financials. There are no exclusions or comparisons.

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