Get Politician Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds context on what data is returned (buy/sell metrics, top tickers, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and periods, then enumerates data included. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence 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?

For a read-only tool with a single parameter and output schema available, the description covers the returned data adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines, which is a gap given the number of sibling tools that could be confused.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input parameter 'slug' is already well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameter 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 tool retrieves activity metrics for a politician broken down by specific periods (30d, 90d, 1y, all-time) and lists included data (buy/sell counts, values, top tickers, transaction type breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_politician_pnl or get_politician_recent_trades which focus on different aspects.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes it's 'useful for analyzing trading patterns', but does not compare with other politician tools or specify prerequisites.

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