get_congress_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: a $0.02 cost, a required WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, and the statutory 45-day disclosure lag. This gives an agent important operational expectations for an otherwise read-only tool.

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?

Three sentences deliver cost, source, scope, fields, filters, regulatory lag, and authorization. Information is front-loaded with the paid indicator and each sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 query tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the source, data scope, returned fields, filtering dimensions, cost, auth requirement, and data freshness caveat. It gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly and interpret the domain.

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 86%, and the schema already documents the meaning of member, ticker, state, since, until, and limit. The description restates the filter concepts (date window, trade type, state) without adding substantial new semantics or value formats beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('get') and resource ('Congressional stock trades parsed from official STOCK Act disclosures'), and enumerates the returned fields and available filters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_trade_filings', so it lacks 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?

Provides clear context about the domain (US House member trades), the data source, the available filters, and a precondition (requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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