cap_table_get_wired_transactionsGetWiredTransactions returns the confirmed-wire ledger (wired + refunded investor rows) for the fundraising Transactions page. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| totalCount | No | ||
| transactions | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety information. It does add useful content context by specifying the ledger includes both wired and refunded investor rows, matching the capabilities of the tool. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral details, keeping it at a mid-level score.
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 a single, focused sentence that starts with the action ('returns') and immediately conveys the core purpose and scope. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or redundancy. It is both concise and well-structured.
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's simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations that establish read-only behavior, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and where it applies. The description covers the essential purpose, and the output schema handles return-value details, so no significant gaps remain.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (companyId described as 'UUID value wrapper'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide any additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond the schema, so no extra credit is given.
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 a specific action ('returns the confirmed-wire ledger') and resource ('wired + refunded investor rows for the fundraising Transactions page'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cap_table_get_transaction_summary or cap_table_record_cap_table_wire. The verb and resource are concrete and unambiguous.
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 implies usage for the fundraising Transactions page but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. It gives a clear context but lacks explicit alternative comparisons, resulting in only implied usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.