gp_portfolioList the portfolio companies of a private equity firm (GP), optionally filtered to active holdings or exited positions. Returns company, sector, geography, entry year, exit year/type, fund and vintage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | PE firm name, e.g. 'Ardian' or 'PAI Partners' | |
| status | No | Filter: only active holdings or only exited positions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It lists the returned data fields, which is helpful, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema provide (e.g., about filtering behavior or performance).
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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key options. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, good annotations), the description is fairly complete. It lists return fields and states filtering capability, leaving little ambiguity. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or data freshness.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds example values for 'gp' and clarifies the 'status' enum, but this is marginal added value over the schema's own descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists portfolio companies of a PE firm, with optional filtering by status. It uses specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool gp_exits which might overlap.
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?
The description implies usage for listing portfolio companies and mentions returned fields, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like gp_exits or search_companies. No exclusions or conditions are stated.
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.
Each tool has a unique purpose: gp_exits and gp_portfolio are per-firm, while search_exits and search_deals are cross-firm, clearly differentiated by scope. search_companies, search_gps, and who_owns cover distinct entity types and actions, leaving no ambiguity.
Tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern for search_* tools and a gp_* prefix for per-firm tools, but who_owns breaks the convention with a question phrase. The inconsistency is noticeable but does not severely impair usability.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain, covering per-firm and cross-firm queries, entity searches, and ownership history without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers the core private equity data needs: searching firms and companies, viewing portfolios and exits for a specific GP, cross-firm deal and exit searches, and ownership lookup. Minor gaps like detailed company financials are outside the apparent scope.