list_funding找投资人side=investor，融资项目project；轮次宽松包含，投资人类型可能推断。项目含FINANCING需求，fundraising=null不代表未融资。只给hasBp，不含他人BP地址。offset翻页，user.id→get_creator，挂牌用set_my_role_profile。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | Yes | investor=看投资人一侧 | project=看在融资的项目一侧 | |
| type | No | 仅 side=investor 有效，投资人类型：individual（个人投资人） | corporate（产业投资） | institution（投资机构） | |
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认 20，最多 50 | |
| round | No | 轮次关键词（自由文本宽松匹配，非精确） | |
| offset | No | 偏移量，默认 0；用上一次返回的 nextCursor |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already covering read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful operational context: round matching is loose, investor type may be inferred, projects include FINANCING needs, fundraising=null does not mean unfunded, and only hasBp is returned without others' BP addresses. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations, though it does not cover permissions, rate limits, or return shape in full.
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 compact and front-loads the side mapping, with each clause carrying information about parameters, data semantics, or related tools. It is telegraphic and arrow-heavy, which slightly hurts readability, but there is no wasted 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?
For a dual-mode list tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the main mode selection, matching caveats, data-return caveats, pagination, and related next actions. It stops short of describing the full returned record shape, but it is adequate for correct invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by clarifying that round matching is broad and that investor type may be inferred, which is not captured in the schema descriptions, and it also reinforces offset as pagination.
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 names both modes (investor side / project side) via side=investor and project=project, so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not use a clear list verb like 'list investors/projects', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling discovery tools, but the funding-focused scope is clear.
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?
It implies when to use each side and adds pagination guidance (offset翻页) and related follow-up tools (user.id→get_creator, 挂牌用set_my_role_profile). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.
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.