Change a commitment's status. Role-gated: only the investor can 'withdraw' a commitment, only the founder can mark it 'funded' (after the wire lands). Either side can move between soft_circled/term_sheet/committed. (requires API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Optional note (max 4000 chars). | |
| status | Yes | ||
| commitment_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: role-based access control and allowable status changes, which are critical for correct use.
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 with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second provides essential role constraints.
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?
Covers core behavior but missing return value, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., commitment existence). Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, more context would improve completeness.
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 33% (only notes described). The description adds meaning to status through role context, but commitment_id and notes lack additional explanation beyond 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 clearly states 'Change a commitment's status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_commitment' by focusing on status updates.
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 provides role-gating rules (only investor can withdraw, only founder can fund) and valid status transitions, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.
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.