Retrieve pre-IPO secondary market valuations — Forge, EquityZen, Hiive prices for SpaceX, Stripe, OpenAI tier names.
Args: company: Optional company name filter (e.g. "SpaceX", "Stripe")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's statement about 'retrieving valuations' is consistent and adds specific context about data sources (Forge, EquityZen, Hiive) and example companies. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 extremely concise—one sentence for purpose plus a brief parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids extraneous details. Every sentence is necessary and sufficient.
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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the single parameter, and provides context (marketplaces, example companies). It does not describe the output format, but given the openWorldHint, this is acceptable. A small gap exists in not specifying what exactly the valuations include.
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 0% (no description in schema for the parameter 'company'). The description compensates by explaining it as an optional company name filter with concrete examples (SpaceX, Stripe). This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage.
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 it retrieves pre-IPO secondary market valuations, specifying marketplaces (Forge, EquityZen, Hiive) and example companies (SpaceX, Stripe, OpenAI). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_13f_delta or get_form_4_insider_trades, which cover different domains.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for pre-IPO valuation data with an optional company filter, but lacks 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools. Given the clear domain, it earns a baseline 'adequate' score.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct regulatory filing or financial data type with clear, non-overlapping descriptions. Even similar concepts like 13F holdings vs. delta are well-differentiated.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_<noun>' pattern, with a single exception 'detect_insider_cluster'. Overall naming is predictable and readable.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but justified by the broad domain of regulatory filings and financial data. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The server covers a comprehensive set of regulatory filings (13F, Form 4, 8K, etc.) and additional financial data (analyst targets, options, short interest). Minor gaps like Form 144 are acceptable given the scope.