Skip to main content
Glama

Which lenders finance this sponsor's borrowers

get_sponsor_lenders
Read-onlyIdempotent

Sponsor by lender pairs counted once per borrower held: borrowers, facilities, principal held, first and latest quarter, new borrowers in the last four quarters against the prior four, quarters since the last new borrower, and the weakest sponsor attribution basis in the pair. Accepts a private credit sponsor id, or a private equity, independent sponsor or venture id, resolved to the credit sponsor carried from that same record (basis origin_record) with its basis printed. A pair whose weakest basis is an inference is an inference; deal_party means the lender was named on an announced deal, not read from a BDC schedule. 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
sortNoborrowers
limitNo
dfx_idYesA dfx:pc: sponsor id, or a dfx:pe:, dfx:isi: or dfx:vc: id the credit graph carries.
min_borrowersNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dfx_id / description
      Previous value: -"A dfx:pc: sponsor id, or a dfx:pe: id the credit graph carries."New value: +"A dfx:pc: sponsor id, or a dfx:pe:, dfx:isi: or dfx:vc: id the credit graph carries."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), while the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the basis-resolution via origin_record, that a pair inherits its weakest basis, the deal_party vs BDC-schedule distinction, and the exact free-tier truncation behavior (5 locked rows, count-only answers, withheld contact/decision-maker values surfaced in entitlement/locked). This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 content mostly earns its place, but it is delivered as one dense run-on paragraph that mingles returned fields, input resolution, and access rules without clear structure. Front-loading is reasonable, though a bulleted separation would be more scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so describing the returned metrics and the entitlement/locked structure is essential and mostly delivered. Combined with the read-only annotations, the definition is close to complete, with the main gap being the undocumented sort/limit/min_borrowers parameters.

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 25% (only dfx_id documented), so the description has to compensate. It does clarify dfx_id's accepted id forms and the resolution path, but says nothing about sort, limit, or min_borrowers, leaving three parameters undocumented except by their enum/defaults.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb+resource (sponsor-by-lender pairs with borrowers, facilities, principal held and related stats), and the title reinforces what it returns, so an agent can tell it produces a ranked lender list for a sponsor. It never names the near-identical sibling search_sponsor_lender, so differentiation from alternatives must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains input id forms and entitlement behavior but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings like search_sponsor_lender or get_sponsor_portfolio. An agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right call versus alternatives.

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.