Fund Momentum

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses behavior like 'unchanged: true and no rows' and the cost context ('Free tier', 'cheapest poll available here'). However, it references a `next_since` field that does not exist in the input schema, which slightly muddies the behavioral contract.

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 four short sentences with zero filler: it leads with the purpose, then the polling behavior, the free tier, and the alternative. It earns every sentence.

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 full parameter schema, safety annotations, and a clear description of the response behavior for the unchanged case, the tool is well-covered. The only notable defect is the `next_since` naming conflict, which prevents it from being fully seamless for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a usage pattern (send previous `next_since` and `etag`) that gives context, but it misnames `since` as `next_since`, so the added value is limited and potentially confusing.

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 states a precise action: 'Return only the funds whose data changed since a given timestamp' with a clear resource (funds) and a specific time-based scope. It also explicitly differentiates itself from search_funds by saying to use this instead of re-running a schedule, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit 'use this instead of' statement and concrete polling guidance: send the previous response's since/etag values, and expects 'unchanged: true' with no rows when nothing changed. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use this tool rather than running a full search.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely new behavioral details: the response carries a 'provenance' block with per-field origin, verification time, and confidence, and the endpoint is free tier. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and immediately followed by the key value proposition (provenance, free tier). No filler or redundant restatement of the title exists.

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?

For a single-argument read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is adequate: it states the operation, the identifier mechanism, the provenance response contract, and pricing tier. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit provenance block and the simple get-profile nature of the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter is thoroughly documented: it is the slug returned by search_funds and should not be guessed. The description itself does not add parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the detailed profile of a specific fund by slug.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_funds (which search) and get_fund_signals (which returns signals). It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but the subject matter makes the purpose clear.

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 slug parameter's schema description explicitly directs callers to 'Call search_funds first rather than guessing' and explains that slugs are not derivable from display names. This gives clear context for when and how to use get_fund, though it does not mention exclusions for all sibling tools.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate them. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by indicating that this is a 'Pro tier' feature, which implies an access/authorization requirement, and it details the kind of data returned.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, lists specific output content, and notes the access tier with no wasted words. Every phrase adds information an agent can use.

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?

For a one-param, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful inventory of what the tool returns and the access condition. It stops short of explaining edge cases like invalid slugs or absence of signals, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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?

The schema documentation covers the single 'slug' parameter completely, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The description doesn't add nuances about slug format or sourcing, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline value is already provided.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Get comprehensive investor signals for a fund' — and enumerates distinct output categories such as GP thesis, bullish/contrarian signals, and founder dos and don'ts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_fund or get_gp_profile without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer this is the right tool when investor signals for a fund are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to adjacent siblings like get_fund or get_gp_profile, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'Pro tier' access constraint and clarifies the fund-scoped nature, but it does not disclose return content or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 only two sentences and concise with no filler. The second sentence 'Pro tier.' is brief but provides useful access context, earning its place despite being a fragment.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with annotations providing safety hints, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, no description of the GP profile content, and no guidance on how this tool relates to get_fund or search_funds, so it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds little value for parameters, only reinforcing that profiles are fund-scoped and not mentioning the optional gp_name filter.

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 definition clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('General Partner profiles') scoped to a fund. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the unique resource type, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_fund or search_funds.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you need GP profiles for a given fund. The 'Pro tier' note signals an access requirement, but there are no explicit alternatives, when-to-use vs. other tools, or exclusion conditions.

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

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds contextual details beyond that: the output is limited to 10 results, each with a reason and score, and it mentions a 'Pro tier' restriction. This is useful but not deep.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core function, output shape, and an important access constraint (Pro tier). Every clause adds value, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only, single-shot matching tool, the description covers the essential contract: input is a startup description, output is a ranked list of 10 funds with reasons and scores. Since the input schema documents all three parameters and the annotations cover safety, nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the general reference to describing a startup, so the score stays at the baseline.

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 a specific action: describe a startup and receive the top 10 matching funds with a reason and score. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_funds by its AI-matching and result-ranking angle, though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference.

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?

It implies when to use the tool, i.e., when a user wants AI-recommended funds for a given startup. However, it never contrasts it with alternatives such as search_funds or get_fund, so an agent must infer the boundary between keyword search and AI-powered matching.

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

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

Light annotations already indicate a non-destructive read operation. The description adds useful transparency with details about the free tier, the 'actively deploying' qualification, and the returned fields including the durable profile URL. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by one compact sentence covering expectations and output. No filler or redundant material.

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?

The tool is straightforward and the schema provides detailed parameter guidance. The description sufficiently covers the output contract by listing the return fields and durable profile URL. Minor optional additions such as pagination behavior are absent but not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema is fully described, including enums, descriptions, and normalization notes. The description only restates the high-level filter concepts at a general level, adding no material meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific action ('Search') and resource ('venture capital funds'), and immediately scopes the purpose with filter dimensions: stage, country, and industry. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_fund and get_fund_signals, which suggest different actions.

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 makes the core use case clear — discovering actively deploying funds by filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_fund, or provide exclusions to guide selection among siblings.

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