Skip to main content
Glama

One real estate fund vehicle in full

get_re_fund_vehicle
Read-onlyIdempotent

The vehicle card with its reporting history year by year as filed (gross asset value, owners, minimum investment, the fund type and name as filed that year), its family in sequence, the public plans that disclosed a commitment, any validated holdings, and its events. A gap in the history is a year the adviser did not report the vehicle, never a year of zero assets. Accepts a dfx:ref: id, an 805- ADV fund id or an 021- Form D number. Gross asset value is a fund's assets on a filing date: never fund size, never commitments, never dry powder, and a quarantined reading enters no sum. The sworn ADV tape starts in 2011 and runs through the latest monthly filings DFX has read (coverage_live on the answer gives the years and counts), so a first report in 2011 or 2012 is a first sighting, not a formation. Holdings, properties, loans and lenders appear only where a property binding passed its blind labels, which is a few hundred managers. 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_idYesA dfx:ref:<uuid> vehicle id, an 805- ADV fund id, or an 021- Form D file number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the gap-in-history semantics, the definition of gross asset value, the 2011 start of the ADV tape and quarantine rule, and the entitlement/locked withholding behavior. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The return content is front-loaded and most sentences carry real data semantics. However, the passage is very long and ends with promotional plan/pricing text ('7 days free at https://dfxintel.com/data-factory/plans') that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly: section contents, coverage caveats, quarantined readings, and the locked/entitlement withholding model. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool and interpret its output appears missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's accepted id formats are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same formats without adding syntax, validation, or format-specific behavior, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('the vehicle card with its reporting history year by year as filed') and enumerates the sections returned (owners, family, commitments, holdings, events). The phrase 'in full' for a single vehicle clearly separates it from the sibling search_re_fund_vehicles, which lists many.

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?

It tells the agent which identifier formats are accepted (dfx:ref, 805- ADV fund id, 021- Form D number), which is useful routing context. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus search_re_fund_vehicles, get_re_fund_manager, or get_re_fund_trends, leaving the selection to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.