Return your pipeline — every project you're watching, with stage, tags, raise size, and last-updated timestamp. Optionally filter by stage or tag. (requires API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| stage | No |
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 discloses that an API key is required and that the tool returns filtered data, but lacks details on pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter) or potential side effects.
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 sentences front-loaded with the core functionality and return fields. No redundant words; every sentence adds value (purpose, fields, filters, auth requirement).
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 description lists return fields (stage, tags, raise size, timestamp) and optional filters, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it omits pagination behavior, ordering, and whether all watched projects are returned, leaving gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional filtering by stage or tag but fails to explain the limit parameter (its default, min, max) or the meaning of the tag parameter. This is inadequate for 3 parameters.
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 'Return' and the resource 'your pipeline — every project you're watching' with specific fields (stage, tags, raise size, timestamp). It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects by focusing on watched projects and pipeline context.
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 'requires API key' as a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or list_commitments. Usage context is implied but not clarified with exclusions.
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.