List commitments where you're either the investor or the founder. Filter by project slug, your role, or status. (requires API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Only commits where you're acting in this role. | |
| slug | No | Filter to a single project. | |
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds '(requires API key)' which helps with authentication awareness, but does not disclose whether the call is read-only, destructive, or other behavioral traits.
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, with the primary action stated first. Every sentence provides value 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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the resource, scope, filters, and auth requirement. However, it does not address return format, pagination, or ordering.
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 50%. The description partially covers parameters by mentioning 'project slug, your role, or status', which maps to slug, role, and status. However, the 'limit' parameter is omitted, and the description adds little beyond the schema's existing enum definitions.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'commitments', and specifies the scope 'where you're either the investor or the founder'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_intros and list_projects by indicating commitment-specific filtering.
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 mentions filtering capabilities but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_projects or list_intros. No explicit when-not or recommendations are given.
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.