Fetch one stored public PitchBook fund record by dataset ID. Use datasets_pitchbook_funds_search to find funds or datasets_pitchbook_funds_facets to inspect filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | PitchBook fund id, e.g. 19719-91F. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that these are stored, public records (not live data), but says nothing about miss/error behavior or pagination. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a solid-but-not-rich 3.
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, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the routing hints. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, the single parameter is fully documented, and sibling tools are named. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema with an example ("19719-91F"). The description restates 'by dataset ID' but adds no format or validation meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one stored public PitchBook fund record) with the scoping key (by dataset ID). The verb 'one ... record' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and facets list tools.
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?
Explicitly names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: datasets_pitchbook_funds_search to find funds and datasets_pitchbook_funds_facets to inspect filters. It implies this tool is the terminal lookup once an ID is known, but never states the when-not (e.g., that an ID is required).
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.
