validate_agent_pitchValidate a complete AFA pitch without storing or submitting it. Use this before requesting controller authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pitch | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: 'without storing or submitting it' confirms no persistence or submission side effects, and 'before requesting controller authorization' provides sequencing context. It does not describe return behavior, but the added context is meaningful.
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 well-structured sentence that leads with the action and includes the key distinction (no storage/submission) and usage timing. Every word earns its place; no padding.
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?
The tool has a complex nested input schema and no output schema, so the description needs to explain return behavior or validation outcomes; it does not. However, the rich schema and sibling tool names provide enough context for basic selection and invocation.
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%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the pitch structure or fields. The phrase 'complete AFA pitch' implies the object must be fully populated, but it adds no semantic detail beyond the parameter name and 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 clearly uses the specific verb 'Validate' with the resource 'complete AFA pitch,' and explicitly states 'without storing or submitting it,' distinguishing it from submission tools. It immediately signals the tool's purpose and scope.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before requesting controller authorization.' It also implies exclusion of submission actions via 'without storing or submitting it,' but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use cases.
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.