get_venture_resourceRetrieve the current value, eligibility, constraints, source provenance, access state, and machine interface for one resource record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the facets returned (value, eligibility, constraints, provenance, access state, machine interface), giving the agent a clear idea of the tool's behavior beyond the generic 'retrieve'. It neither contradicts annotations nor introduces ambiguity, though it omits details like error behavior or permission requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action 'Retrieve' and lists the returned facets efficiently. No redundant words or fluff; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 simple read-only get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid enumeration of what is returned, making it largely complete. It doesn't mention how to find resource_id (e.g., via search_venture_resources) or what happens when the resource is not found, but these are not critical for selection and invocation in this context.
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 schema has only one parameter, resource_id, with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explicitly explain how to obtain or format resource_id. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the phrase 'for one resource record' indirectly clarifies that resource_id identifies the resource, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly scopes to 'one resource record', enumerating exactly what is returned (current value, eligibility, constraints, source provenance, access state, machine interface). This distinguishes it from the sibling search_venture_resources, which implies plural/search behavior.
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 phrase 'for one resource record' implies use when a specific resource is known, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_venture_resources, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implied.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: pitch lifecycle (check, validate, submit, report) vs. capital/resources discovery (get, search, open). Slight overlap between get_live_capital_opportunity, get_open_capital_opportunities, and search_live_capital_opportunities, but descriptions clarify difference between get (specific record) vs search (general) vs open (current grants). Could be clearer with verbs like 'get_opportunity_by_id'.
Follows consistent verb_noun pattern: check_, get_, search_, validate_, submit_, report_ with clear objects (pitch, capital_opportunity, resource, milestone). Minor inconsistency: 'get_open_capital_opportunities' (adjective) vs 'search_live_capital_opportunities' (adjective) but they are distinguishable. Mixed use of 'opportunity' vs 'opportunities' is fine.
9 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool has a distinct role in the two core domains (pitch management and resource discovery). No redundancy or bloat; count is appropriate for the scope.
Covers pitch lifecycle (existence, validation, submission, milestone reporting) and resource discovery (search, get, live opportunities). Missing obvious update/delete operations for pitches or milestones; no 'delete_pitch' or 'update_pitch'. Also lacks a tool to list all venture resources without search (but search likely covers). Minor gaps but core workflows are covered.