Full company profile: description, location, sectors, every funding round with stage/amount/investors, named backers, exit if any. Figures are source-linked on the company page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Company id from find_companies or search_rounds |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by listing the exact data returned (funding rounds, backers, exit) and noting that figures are source-linked on the company page URL, which clarifies the provenance of the data.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Full company profile') and packs all key content into a compact line with no 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?
With a single parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling context, the description fully specifies what the tool returns: all major company attributes, funding history, backers, and exit status, plus the source-link behavior. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 100% with a single 'id' parameter clearly described as coming from find_companies or search_rounds. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond this, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a full company profile with specific content: description, location, sectors, funding rounds with stage/amount/investors, named backers, and exit if any. The verb is implicit in the name 'get_company' and the resource is specific, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like find_companies and search_rounds.
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 implies usage context: it is the detailed lookup after finding companies, confirmed by the parameter description 'Company id from find_companies or search_rounds'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow is clear and the sibling tools are differentiated by their search-centric roles.
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: company search, full profile, investor profile, aggregate market map, and searches for exits, investors, and rounds. No overlap or ambiguity.
Tools follow a verb_noun pattern consistently (find_companies, get_company, search_exits, etc.). 'market_map' is also verb_noun but slightly less conventional, making it a minor deviation.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a European funding explorer, covering essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers company and investor details, funding rounds, exits, and aggregate data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited filtering on search_rounds), but core functionality is solid.
