Get Political Sector Rotation

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

The description fully discloses the read-only nature (consistent with annotations) and explains the aggregation behavior and output fields. It adds value beyond the readOnlyHint by detailing what data is returned and how it is grouped, ensuring transparency.

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 two sentences plus an illustrative example, all front-loaded and directly relevant. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and thorough parameter descriptions in the schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and output. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mentioning sorting by count/volume and the lookback window, and it implies the aggregation scope, which aids parameter understanding. It goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool aggregates trades by sector, listing specific return fields (trade count, dollar volume, distinct politicians, top tickers). It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'political sector rotation', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual politicians or trades.

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 an example usage ('politicians piled into Energy this month') and suggests sorting by count or volume, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_politician_transactions or get_policy_trade_leaderboard, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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