Recent funding/trial events for one institution, PI, sponsor, or topic. Use to enrich an account or check a competitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | 'institution' | 'pi' | 'sponsor' | 'topic'. | |
| value | Yes | The entity name/value. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'recent' events but does not specify the time range, output structure, pagination, or any potential side effects. This leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.
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 and directly conveys purpose and usage context. It is efficient with no redundant information, though the second sentence could be slightly more specific.
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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose and how to use it for the two parameters, but it omits details about return format, error conditions, and the definition of 'recent.' Given no output schema, more completeness is warranted.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the entity types but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns 'Recent funding/trial events' for a specific entity. It provides concrete use cases ('enrich an account or check a competitor') and specifies the four entity types. While it distinguishes from siblings in intent, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like delta_digest or new_funding.
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 suggests when to use ('enrich an account or check a competitor') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. The context is implied rather than explicit.
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. delta_digest and new_funding both retrieve new items but target different use cases (BD teams vs GTM trigger). Descriptions help differentiate. No severe overlap.
All names use lowercase underscores. Consistency is good overall, but grammatical patterns vary: verb_noun (search_records), adjective_noun (new_funding), noun_noun (entity_watch). Minor inconsistency.
5 tools is appropriate for the domain. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Core operations for monitoring and searching grants/trials are covered. Missing a dedicated tool for retrieving a single record's full details, but search_records can function as such. Minor gap.