search_venture_resourcesSearch AFA's source-linked catalog of current capital, compute, model, developer-tool, deployment, and proof resources. Results distinguish discovery records from actual AFA entitlements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| access_type | No | ||
| availability | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: results are source-linked, and they distinguish discovery records from actual entitlements. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and provides insight into the returned data's nature.
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 two sentences, tight and front-loaded. It starts with the action and resource, then adds a key differentiator. No filler or redundant content.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and a notable result distinction, but it lacks guidance on how filters interact, pagination, result limits, or what a returned entry includes. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement in explaining usage 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing resource categories that map to the category enum, but it does not explain query, access_type, or availability semantics. The description adds minimal meaning for most parameters, leaving them underdocumented.
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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'AFA's source-linked catalog', enumerating specific resource types (capital, compute, model, developer-tool, deployment, proof). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that results differentiate discovery records from actual AFA entitlements, which sets it apart from get_venture_resource.
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 provides clear context that this tool is for searching a catalog, implying a browse/explore use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_venture_resource) or state when not to use this tool. It gives contextual guidance without explicit exclusions.
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.