get_dealFull record for one M&A deal by id: title, type, value, announced date, status, all parties with their resolved company refs where a dataset id exists (and the raw party name where it does not), summary, sources, and the per-deal confidence flag. Use get_deals or find_deals_by_company to find a deal id first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Deal id as returned by get_deals/find_deals_by_company, e.g. 'amd_xilinx_2020'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description thoroughly discloses what data is returned (party resolution, confidence flag, etc.). No side effects or permissions needed, so transparency is high. Slight gap: no mention of potential missing fields, but acceptable for a read operation.
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 concise sentences: first specifies what is returned, second gives usage guidance. No redundancies or filler.
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?
Complete for a simple get-by-id tool. No output schema needed because description enumerates return fields. Usage guidance ensures correct invocation.
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 covers 100% of parameters (one string 'id'). Description adds value by specifying the format with example 'amd_xilinx_2020' and source of the id (from get_deals/find_deals_by_company), exceeding the schema's description.
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 'Full record for one M&A deal by id' and enumerates returned fields (title, type, value, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_deals, find_deals_by_company) by stating their role in finding the id first.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'Use get_deals or find_deals_by_company to find a deal id first', providing clear when-to-use and alternative tools.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing portfolio exposure, comparing companies, finding chokepoints, getting company details, country exposure, deals, segments, supply chain walk, and company search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., 'get_company', 'search_companies', 'find_chokepoints'). The convention is uniform and predictable.
9 tools is well-scoped for a specialized supply chain analysis server. Each tool serves a distinct query or analysis need without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers core operations: search, detail, comparison, portfolio analysis, chokepoint identification, country exposure, deals, and supply chain graph traversal. Minor gaps like historical trends or alerts exist but do not hinder primary use cases.