Search open projects by keyword across name, one-liner, description, and sector. Optional filters: stage, max raise size in USD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Free-text search query | |
| stage | No | ||
| max_raise_usd | No | Maximum raise size in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic search operation. It omits information about whether the tool is read-only, authorization requirements, error handling, or performance considerations.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and lists key details without any wasted words.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers basic input expectations but lacks details on return format, pagination, ordering, or error behavior. It is minimally complete for a straightforward search 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?
The description adds value by listing the searchable fields (name, one-liner, description, sector) not detailed in the schema, and mentions optional filters (stage, max raise size). However, with 50% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate for missing descriptions on limit and stage (stage values are not enumerated). This is adequate but not exceptional.
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 'Search open projects by keyword' across specific fields, making the verb and resource clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_projects, which likely lists all projects without search.
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 searching projects with keyword and optional filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_project.
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.