SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Recent crypto and Web3 venture funding rounds

crypto_crypto_fundraising_rounds

Read-only

Recent crypto and Web3 venture funding rounds (project, date, round type, amount and valuation in USD, lead and other investors, category, chains) from DefiLlama's public Raises page. Filter by date window, investor, category, chain, round or minimum amount. Amounts are as DefiLlama lists them and can be missing for undisclosed rounds; new rounds appear within days. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_crypto_hack_rekt_database when you need Rekt News leaderboard of the largest crypto hacks; crypto_crypto_liquidations_feed when you need OKX perpetual-swap liquidations for one underlying. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_crypto_fundraising_rounds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look back this many days, 1 to 365 (default 30). Ignored when since is given.
`chain`	No	Optional chain filter, e.g. Solana, Ethereum
`limit`	No	Rows to return, 1 to 100 (default 20)
`round`	No	Optional round filter, e.g. Seed, Series A, Strategic
`since`	No	Optional start date YYYY-MM-DD
`category`	No	Optional category filter, e.g. DeFi, Infrastructure, Gaming
`investor`	No	Optional investor name filter (lead or other), e.g. a16z, Coinbase Ventures
`minAmountUsd`	No	Optional minimum amount in USD

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No
`rounds`	No
`source`	No
`matches`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`latestInSource`	No
`totalDisclosedUsd`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses provenance (DefiLlama public Raises page), that amounts can be absent for undisclosed rounds, an ingestion lag of days, and the billing model ($0.002 per successful call via x402, failures not charged). Return shape is left to the output schema, which is fine, but there is no note on pagination or how limits interact with ordering.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then caveats, then alternatives and pricing; nothing is buried. It runs long on the sibling round-up and the payment mechanics, but both are non-redundant information an agent may need.

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?

For an 8-param read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the parts structured fields cannot: data source, freshness, missing-value behavior, and cost. Only minor gaps remain around filter matching and result ordering.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description only restates the filter dimensions at a higher level. It adds no matching semantics — whether 'investor' is an exact or substring match, or what 'round' values are valid — so baseline 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 first sentence names a specific resource (crypto/Web3 venture funding rounds) and enumerates the fields returned (project, date, round type, amount, valuation, investors, category, chains), plus the data source. It also explicitly separates itself from the hack-rekt and liquidations siblings, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the supported filter dimensions (date window, investor, category, chain, round, minimum amount) and names two sibling tools with the 'when you need X' condition that selects them. What's missing is a negative case closer to home — e.g., that it is not a source for token vesting or SEC filings, which sit nearby in the sibling list.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

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

Need Help?