Skip to main content
Glama

DFX Real Estate Intelligence

by io.github.Capital-W-Holdings
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

One allocator, consultant, manager or fund in full

get_allocator
Read-onlyIdempotent

For an allocator: the card with reported assets and basis, funded status, the latest allocation policy rows (target, range, actual as printed with the subject's own label beside DFX's bucket), size and funding readings with source, investment staff and executives with the quote they were read from, plus relationships (advisers, managers, the systems an office invests for), events and same_as links through get_entity. For a Form 5500 plan: its service providers and investment entities as filed in the latest plan year (Schedule C with service codes and compensation, Schedule D with value). For a consultant: client counts on the tape, its ADV institutional numbers and the plans whose Form 5500 names it. For a manager or fund: which public LPs back it, the plans whose Form 5500 names it, and its pe / vc reference. A target is never an actual, a disclosed holding is never an approval, commitment dollars repeat across reports, re-ups are the plan's own words, estimates are labelled and nothing predictive is published. ACCESS: without a paid DFX plan on the vertical, a list returns its first 5 rows in full and a count of the rest by type (locked.count, locked.by_type), never the rows; a record names its subject and the first 3 related names per section; contact values (email, phone, profile URLs) and decision-maker names are never returned, only their types and counts. Every answer says what it withheld in entitlement and locked. Full access: DFX Intelligence, 7 days free at https://dfxintel.com/data-factory/plans.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dfx_idYesAn allocator graph id of the form dfx:al:<uuid> (from search_allocators, resolve_name or search_entities).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description richly discloses access behavior: unentitled requests return only first 5 rows plus locked counts, records expose only first 3 related names per section, contact values and decision-maker names are withheld, and every answer reports withholding in entitlement and locked. It also clarifies data interpretation rules such as targets never being actuals and commitments repeating across reports.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core return profile for each entity type, followed by access constraints, so the most important content appears early. It is dense and runs long, but for a tool with this much varied output and entitlement behavior, most sentences carry relevant information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so extensively across all four entity types. It also covers access tiers, withheld data, and what is reported in entitlement and locked, leaving no major contextual gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single dfx_id parameter, including its format and source tools. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states exactly what the tool returns for each supported entity type: allocator card, Form 5500 plan filings, consultant details, and manager/fund backing. It names the resource and scope precisely, and references the sibling get_entity for same_as links, so an agent can distinguish it from search/list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear that this tool returns a full record once a dfx_id is known, and it enumerates entity types it covers. However, it never says when to use this versus search_allocators, search_entities, or get_entity, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DFX Real Estate Intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources