get_trade_filings

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the call costs $0.01, requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, and returns an index with official PDF links.

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 compact, front-loaded with the cost, and covers the resource, output contents, primary use case, and authentication requirement. Every clause carries useful information with no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing what the index contains: filer, district, type, date, and official PDF link. It also addresses payment, key requirements, and the polling use case; only minor details such as rate limits or explicit alternative routing are missing.

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 because each parameter is already explained. The description only lightly adds to parameter meaning; mentioning polling filing_type 'P' mostly restates the schema's own example of 'P' for trade reports.

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 identifies the resource: the U.S. House financial-disclosure filing index, including filer, district, type, date, and PDF link. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the similarly named sibling get_congress_trades, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

It provides a concrete usage cue: poll filing_type 'P' to catch fresh trade disclosures early. It also highlights the wallet-key requirement, but it does not state when to avoid this tool or prefer a sibling alternative.

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