get_trade_filings

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

The description prominently discloses the cost ('PAID ($0.01)') and the authentication requirement ('Requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY'), which are critical operational behaviors. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does a good job with these essentials, though it doesn't cover rate limits or pagination intricacies.

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 dense but efficient sentence, front-loading the cost and purpose, then enumerating key fields and a usage hint. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds value.

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 modest complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, cost, auth, key usage pattern. It doesn't describe response format, but that's not required if output schema exists (it doesn't, but the tool is a simple index listing). It could mention pagination beyond limit, but otherwise it's fairly complete.

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 schema already provides thorough parameter descriptions (coverage 100%), including defaults and examples. The description adds semantics around filing_type 'P' for trades, which is a useful hint, but otherwise the schema does the lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is highly specific: 'US House financial-disclosure filing index' with a clear enumeration of what it returns (filer, district, type, date, PDF link) and a distinct verb ('Poll'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_congress_trades by focusing on the filing index rather than summarized trade data.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Poll filing_type 'P' to catch fresh trade disclosures early.' This is actionable guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like get_congress_trades, though the sibling context implies differentiation.

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