deal-tools

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It indicates an aggregate/read operation but does not disclose data freshness, result limits, access requirements, or whether the operation is side-effect free. 'Free' is the only extra behavioral note.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core function and output components are front-loaded, and 'Free' is a useful tag appended without clutter.

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 is simple with one optional parameter, and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, without annotations, output schema, or sibling differentiation, the agent lacks behavioral context and selection guidance, so completeness is only adequate.

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% and the days parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'recent period,' which aligns with the lookback window. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Aggregate') and names the resource ('funding statistics') with concrete output components ('deal count, total raised, sector breakdown'). It clearly states what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like recent_raises.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus recent_raises or raise_lookup. 'Free' addresses cost, not usage context, and there are no exclusions or alternative references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation and 'Free' signals no cost, but it does not clarify what happens when no recent raise is found, what 'recently' means, or what the verified record contains.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The standalone 'Free.' is slightly awkward but still communicates useful context without 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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and the description barely characterizes the return value ('the verified record'). Missing details like 'no result' behavior and timeframe reduce completeness.

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 already fully documents the single parameter with 'Company name or domain' and length constraints, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100%, so a 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?

The description clearly states the action ('look up'), the specific resource (a company), and the scope ('recently raised funding'). The phrase 'specific company' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like recent_raises, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'specific company' implies this tool is for single-company lookups rather than batch or aggregate queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus recent_raises or deal_stats, nor does it mention exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by saying results are verified against public filings and press, and that the service is free. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, rate limits, or what 'recently' means operationally beyond the example phrases.

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 short, front-loaded with the main subject, and uses concrete examples efficiently. The 'Free.' sentence is minimal and useful. Every sentence contributes.

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 simple three-optional-parameter shape, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without knowledge of the return format, result limits, or how this tool differs from raise_lookup and deal_stats. That keeps it from being fully complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples add a little extra meaning, like 'this week' implying days=7 and 'fintech' implying sector=fintech, but it does not add new semantics for min_amount_usd or otherwise compensate for schema gaps.

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 tool returns startups/companies that recently raised funding and gives concrete example questions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools deal_stats and raise_lookup, but the resource and recency focus are specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 example queries that indicate when the tool is appropriate, such as 'who raised this week' or 'fintech companies that just raised'. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is fairly clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.