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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses real behavioral traits: round filtering is loose/inclusive matching, investor type may be inferred rather than user-supplied, projects include FINANCING needs, and fundraising=null does not imply unfunded. It also scopes output ('只给hasBp，不含他人BP地址'), which is valuable disclosure an agent could not infer. Pagination via offset is noted but not deeply elaborated.
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?
It is front-loaded with the side distinction and packs output caveats and routing into a few clauses, with no fluff. The telegraphic semicolon-joined style is dense and occasionally hard to parse, which costs it a point versus a cleanly structured definition.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious pieces: loose round matching, inferred investor type, null-fundraising semantics, and what the result does and does not contain (hasBp but no BP addresses). Only the exact return shape and paging termination remain implicit.
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 does add one genuinely new semantic — type may be inferred — but its other parameter notes ('轮次宽松包含', 'offset翻页') largely restate the schema text ('自由文本宽松匹配', '用上一次返回的 nextCursor').
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 resources ('找投资人' / '融资项目') and binds each to a side value, so an agent knows this is a two-mode financing directory/list tool. The verb is only implied ('找' rather than 'list/返回'), and the title's '双透镜' does part of the work, but the side split is unambiguous.
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 gives routing hints for related tools ('user.id→get_creator', '挂牌用set_my_role_profile'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it never contrasts with the many overlapping discovery siblings (list_creators, search_people, list_products_discover, search_needs) or says when NOT to use this lens.
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.