Builders in Fintech

Coverage check: investors behind matching fintech rounds

coverage_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

How many investors backed public fintech equity rounds in the last 12 months that match a country / stage / sub-sector, the top 3 investors by matching rounds (with whether they have a fund on Deploying now), and a coverage caveat (share of rounds in the period with a known country). Optional filters apply to the qualifying rounds: topic (topic slug, via the news linked to the round), country (company's country slug), stage (pre-seed, seed, series-a, series-b, series-c-plus, growth — derived from round_type). All arguments optional. Unknown arguments are rejected.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "coverage_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stage`	No	Stage bucket.
`topic`	No	Topic slug, e.g. 'payments'.
`country`	No	Country slug, e.g. 'italy'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard-coded 12-month lookback, a top-3 cap on returned investors, the inclusion of fund-on-Deploying status, an explicit coverage caveat, and rejection of unknown arguments.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is appropriately dense and front-loaded with the returned value, but it is delivered as one long run-on sentence mixing outputs, filter semantics, and error behavior. It would read better split into a return-value sentence and a filters/arguments sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does: the investor count, the top-3 list with fund flags, and the coverage caveat. Filter semantics are covered too. Only the exact shape/field names of the response remain unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and enums are documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns more by explaining derivations the schema cannot: stage is derived from round_type, country is the company's country slug, and topic matches via news linked to the round.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific analytical output: investor count for fintech rounds in the last 12 months matching filters, top 3 investors with fund-on-Deploying status, and a coverage caveat. It is more precise than the name 'coverage_check' suggests, though it never names which sibling (e.g. most_active_investors, get_investor_scorecard) it should be chosen over.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage information is 'All arguments optional. Unknown arguments are rejected.' There is no statement of when to use this versus the many sibling investor/round tools, nor when not to. The fixed 12-month window is disclosed but is a behavior, not guidance.

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

All Builders in Fintech tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?