Funding events by company name (paid, $0.003/req or pass).
Args:
company: company name fragment (e.g. "SpaceX", "Ambrook").
limit: max events (1-20).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| company | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.003/req or pass) and that 'company' is a fragment match, adding useful context. However, it omits return structure, error behaviors, and any side effects, leaving significant gaps.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a simple args list. The pricing note is relevant and the structure is scannable. Every sentence adds value.
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 two-parameter search, the description covers the primary function and parameters, but it does not specify the output format or fields of returned events, and there is no output schema to compensate. It also lacks details on pagination or ordering.
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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'company' as a name fragment with example values, and 'limit' as max events with an explicit range (1-20). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 'Funding events by company name' clearly states the tool's function: retrieving funding events filtered by a company. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'funding' and 'funding_latest', which likely list all events. The verb is implicit but unambiguous.
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 'by company name' implies usage when a specific company's funding events are needed, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool. No usage guidance beyond this implication is provided.
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 grouped by domain (funding, deals, transcripts, etc.) and each has a specific focus: basic list, latest, search, or summary. While some pairs like deals/deals_search and funding/funding_latest could be confused, the descriptions clearly differentiate them. The boundaries are mostly clear, but the sheer number of tools requires careful reading.
Naming is inconsistent across the set. Some tools use bare nouns (funding, deals, catalogues), some use verb prefixes (get_article, list_threads, search_wire), and many use suffixes (_latest, _search, _summary). The position and style of modifiers vary between domains, making it difficult to predict tool names.
With 27 tools, the server is on the heavy end, which aligns with its terminal-style scope covering many distinct data domains (news, transcripts, funding, retail, model watch). The count is justified by the breadth, but it feels dense and could be split into smaller, more focused servers.
The server provides comprehensive coverage for most domains: listing, retrieving details, searching, and domain-specific variants (latest, hot, sentiment). Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific funding event by ID or a latest deals tool, but these are easy workarounds.