us_funding_roundsAccess recent US funding rounds from SEC Form D filings, including key company…. Access recent US funding rounds from SEC Form D filings, including key company data and investment details. A clean alternative to Crunchbase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | Input for US Funding Rounds — SEC Form D (Crunchbase Alternative). See https://apify.com/noniner/us-funding-rounds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's main extra claim — SEC Form D as the source — largely restates the title. It says nothing about coverage limits (only US issuers who file Form D), recency lag, result volume, pagination, or cost, which are the traits an agent actually needs here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first sentence is duplicated and truncated mid-thought ('including key company….') before being immediately repeated in full. Beyond being redundant, the corruption at the front of the description undermines trust and wastes the most prominent position.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description never describes the shape of a returned funding round (company, round size, investors, dates) or what the single input object configures. For a data-retrieval tool with a nested input and no output contract, this leaves the agent guessing on both sides of the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single nested 'input' object with 100% schema coverage, so the schema is nominally responsible for parameter meaning. The description adds no information about what that input object should contain, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate rather than a lower score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific resource and data source: recent US funding rounds derived from SEC Form D filings, which lets an agent know exactly what corpus is being queried. The 'clean alternative to Crunchbase' line differentiates against an external product rather than against sibling tools like funding_signals or sec_filings_extractor, so routing is only partially served.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. Given siblings such as funding_signals, sec_filings_extractor, company_due_diligence, and equity_analyst that plausibly overlap, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.