Search investors (entity-resolved: name variants are merged). Sortable by deal count or company count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| type | No | Investor type filter, e.g. "Venture Capital" | |
| query | No | Investor name or fragment, e.g. "accel" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, lowering the burden on description. The description adds useful behavioral details: entity resolution (name variants merged) and sort options by deal/company count. It does not describe response format or pagination, but the added context is substantive, justifying a score above 3.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose immediately. There is no fluff or redundant information. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the core function and a key trait, the second mentions sorting capabilities.
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?
The tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides the essential purpose and two behavioral traits, but it omits details like default sort order, pagination behavior, and what fields appear in responses. Given the simplicity of a search tool and good annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
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 50% (type and query have descriptions; page and sort lack descriptions). The description adds meaning to sort by stating 'sortable by deal count or company count,' which maps to the enum values. However, it does not compensate for the lack of description for page, and type/query are already documented in the schema. The added value is partial.
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 verb+resource: 'Search investors.' It adds a distinguishing feature (entity-resolved, merging name variants) and mentions sortability, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like search_exits and search_rounds. This is specific and 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 description gives a clear context of what the tool does (search investors with entity resolution and sorting) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_investor for fetching a single investor. There is no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
