congressional-trades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields, source, and cost, but omits details on rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, and error handling. For a read-only query tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 four sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by mode explanation, return fields, and source/cost. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, achieving excellent conciseness and logical structure.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: modes, returned data, source, and cost. It lacks examples or interpretation of performance metrics, but is still fairly complete for a straightforward query tool.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the dual behavior of the 'ticker' parameter and summarizing what fields are returned. However, it doesn't enumerate permitted values for 'transaction_type' or 'chamber', leaving some ambiguity.

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 it retrieves US congressional stock trades under the STOCK Act. It distinguishes two explicit modes: supplying a ticker for stock-specific trades or omitting it for market-wide activity. This specificity and differentiation from sibling tools like 'insider-trades' (corporate insiders) earns top marks.

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 clear guidance on when to use each mode ('supply a ticker' vs 'omit ticker') and mentions no API key is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., for corporate insider trades), thus slightly lacking in exhaustive guidance.

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