Look up company funding and firmographic data on Crunchbase: total funding, last round, investors, founding year, employee range, and category. Use to check whether a company is actually growing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Company name to search (e.g. "anthropic") | |
| maxResults | No | Max companies (default 5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the tool as a lookup (read-only), but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or other constraints. The phrase 'look up' implies non-destructive behavior, but without explicit safety cues, the transparency is only adequate.
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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the action and data, and contains no redundant or unclear language.
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 no output schema, the description helpfully lists the returned fields (funding, investors, etc.). It lacks details on error handling or pagination, but for a straightforward search tool, the coverage is good.
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 baseline is 3. The description restates parameter purposes ('Company name to search', 'Max companies') but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clear verb-resource pair ('Look up company funding and firmographic data on Crunchbase') and specifies the output fields (total funding, last round, etc.). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_linkedin_company or search_sec_filings.
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 a concrete use case ('Use to check whether a company is actually growing'), giving implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
