congress_trades

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses three behavioral traits: newest-first order, legally required dollar brackets rather than exact amounts, and the already-normalized direction semantics for put purchases. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then key filter semantics, then a tidy Args block with one line per parameter. No wordy filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

All eight optional parameters receive adequate guidance, and the tool's output-related caveats (sort order, amount granularity, direction normalization) are covered. With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: ticker format, politician_id origin, direction values, owner values, asset_type values, date format, and limit range with default. This is more informative than the raw schema.

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 'Stock trades disclosed by members of Congress (House and Senate PTRs)', clearly identifying the resource and data scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like top_signals or member_track_record, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives explicit usage context by enumerating the available filters (ticker, politician_id, direction, owner, asset_type, date range) and noting that politician_id comes from `search`. It does not name alternative tools for signals or track records, but the filter list makes the tool's intended role clear.

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