get_congress_trades

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

The description indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation (parsing and returning trades) and mentions the requirement of a WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY for access. It does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, but the nature of the operation is clear. The disclosure lag is a behavioral aspect that is transparently communicated.

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 concise but includes necessary information: purpose, fields, filters, lag, and key requirement. It is structured logically with separate sentences for the main function, filtering, lag, and authentication. The leading 'PAID ($0.02) —' adds a minor cost indicator but does not detract from clarity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides enough context by listing the data fields (ticker, asset, buy/sell, transaction date, amount range) to let the agent infer the return structure. It also covers filtering options and the disclosure lag. However, it does not describe edge cases or error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple query tool.

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?

All parameters have clear descriptions in the schema: type is an enum with allowed values, limit specifies max rows, since/until are ISO date bounds, state is a prefix, member is a substring, and ticker is exact. Each description includes examples (e.g., 'wittman', 'NVDA') to illustrate expected input, providing high semantic clarity.

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 parses congressional stock trades from official STOCK Act disclosures and lists the specific data fields (ticker, asset, buy/sell, transaction date, amount range). It specifies the scope as US House member trades and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trade_filings by focusing on trade data rather than filings.

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 explicitly mentions filterable parameters (member name, ticker, trade type, state, date window) and notes the 45-day disclosure lag, which is crucial for interpreting data freshness. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but the focus on trades versus filings provides implicit guidance.

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