SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

PitchBook public fund profile: fund name, description

finance_pitchbook_scraper_fund_data

Read-only

PitchBook public fund profile: fund name, description, quick facts as PitchBook shows them publicly (strategy, status, manager, size, vintage, dry powder when public), domicile address, and the profile's FAQ answers (manager, type, status, notable and latest investments). Takes the PitchBook fund id (e.g. 11230-30F from pitchbook.com/profiles/fund/11230-30F). Via a premium residential proxy; subscriber-only performance data is not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_pitchbook_investors when you need PitchBook public profile of an investor, lender or advisor; finance_sec_nport_mutual_fund_holdings when you need recent SEC NPORT-P filings for one fund-company CIK. Price: $0.005 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	PitchBook fund id, e.g. 11230-30F (from the fund profile URL)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses that access is via a premium residential proxy, that subscriber-only performance data is deliberately absent from the response, and the exact cost model ($0.005 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failures not charged). These are cost and scope facts an agent cannot infer from annotations, and they are material before committing a paid call.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by the id requirement, access method, exclusions and price. It is dense and mostly earns its space, but the long parenthetical field list is somewhat list-heavy and repeats content the output schema already carries.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, the id format and its source URL, what is not returned, the access path, and the cost with its failure policy. No material decision-relevant gap remains.

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% and the single parameter already documents format ('PitchBook fund id, e.g. 11230-30F (from the fund profile URL)'). The description repeats this and adds the provenance example path pitchbook.com/profiles/fund/11230-30F, which is marginally helpful but largely duplicative, so the 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 description names a specific verb and resource ('PitchBook public fund profile') and enumerates exactly what is returned: fund name, description, quick facts (strategy, status, manager, size, vintage, dry powder), domicile, and FAQ answers. It explicitly separates itself from finance_pitchbook_investors (investor/lender/advisor profiles) and finance_sec_nport_mutual_fund_holdings (SEC NPORT-P filings), so an agent can discriminate 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit routing rules: use the sibling investors tool when the target is an investor/lender/advisor, and the SEC tool when what is wanted is NPORT-P filings for a fund-company CIK. It also states the precondition (needs a PitchBook fund id) and the boundaries (public data only, subscriber performance data excluded).

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?