按公司ID分页查询公司融资历史，返回轮次、金额、币种、投资方、FA和估值等信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| company_id | Yes | ||
| is_underwater | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / is_underwaterAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Is Underwater"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation returning history but does not disclose pagination mechanics (e.g., cursor-based), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks some behavioral details.
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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key return information. It is front-loaded but could be restructured to list parameters or usage notes without adding length.
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?
With an output schema existing and 5 parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and returns but omits details on filtering (is_underwater) and field selection. It is minimally complete for the tool's complexity but leaves room for improvement.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions company_id and pagination (cursor, page_size) but fails to describe 'fields' (selectable fields) or 'is_underwater' (filter). With 5 parameters, only partial coverage is provided, leaving significant gaps.
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 queries company funding history by company ID with pagination, returning specific details like round, amount, currency, investors, FA, and valuation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_companies or aggregate_funding_by_tags by focusing on a single company's funding events.
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 querying a company's funding history with pagination, which is evident from the parameter mention. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others like search_company_investment_cases or provide exclusions, though the context makes it reasonably clear.
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.