Acknowledge a commitment as the founder or the investor. When both sides have acknowledged, status auto-promotes from soft_circled/term_sheet to 'committed' and the amount is added to the project's public round progress. Calling twice from the same side is a no-op. (requires API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commitment_id | Yes | Commitment UUID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the action is idempotent on same-side calls, auto-promotes status, adds amount to progress, and requires an API key. It does not detail error states (e.g., if commitment already committed), but the key behaviors are covered.
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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey all critical information: who, what, effect, idempotency, and authentication. No superfluous text.
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 minimal input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for effective use. It covers the action, the conditions for status change, and the no-op behavior. A minor gap is the absence of prerequisites (e.g., commitment must be in soft_circled/term_sheet status), but it's not critical.
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 100% with one parameter described as 'Commitment UUID.' The tool description adds context by explaining that acknowledging this commitment triggers status changes, enriching the semantic meaning beyond the schema alone.
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 identifies the action (acknowledge a commitment), specifies the actors (founder or investor), explains the effect (status promotion and round progress addition), and notes the no-op behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools like submit_commitment and update_commitment_status by focusing on the acknowledgment step.
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 implicitly states when to use the tool (when a commitment needs acknowledgment) and the requirement for both sides to acknowledge for status promotion. It does not explicitly exclude usage scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent.
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 targets a distinct action on a specific resource (commitments, intros, projects, watches) with no overlap. For example, list_projects vs search_projects differ by filtering, and list_watches vs watch_project are clearly separate.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., acknowledge_commitment, list_projects, update_watch. The verbs are imperative and the nouns clearly indicate the resource.
14 tools cover the core interactions of a fundraising platform—project discovery, pipeline management, intros, and commitments—without being bloated or insufficient.
The tool set covers the investor and founder journey well, but lacks project creation/update tools for founders, which is a minor gap given the server's focus on round interactions.