fec-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains what independent expenditures are and mentions filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve a purpose: defining the resource, explaining its importance, and listing filter options. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. There's minimal wasted verbiage, though the second sentence about election influence could be considered slightly extraneous for pure tool selection purposes.

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?

For a 6-parameter data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what's being retrieved and some filter options, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or error conditions. The combination of good schema coverage and clear purpose statement makes this minimally viable, but significant gaps remain in behavioral transparency.

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 description mentions three filter options ('candidate targeted, committee spending, or support/oppose indicator') which correspond to three of the six parameters. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some contextual meaning about what these filters represent in the political expenditure context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema 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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('independent expenditures (Schedule E)'), and scope ('money spent by PACs and Super PACs to support or oppose candidates without coordinating with campaigns'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_committee_finances or get_disbursements by focusing on independent political expenditures rather than general finances or disbursements.

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 provides implied usage context by stating it's 'critical for understanding outside money influence in elections' and listing filterable attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_spending or get_disbursements, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for use.

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