Search for crowdfunding campaigns by company name, campaign name, or platform with the FMP Crowdfunding Campaign Search API. Access detailed information to track and analyze crowdfunding activities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Company name, campaign name, or platform to search for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Access detailed information' but omits specifics about the returned data shape, pagination, search behavior (exact vs. partial match), or any access limits. This is insufficient for a search tool, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the response.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence ('Access detailed information...') is generic and adds little value, but overall the description is compact and easy to parse.
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 simple tool, the description gives a basic idea but lacks critical details like result set characteristics, required identifier format, or output schema. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete; it doesn't explain what 'detailed information' actually contains.
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 single 'name' parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description repeats the same meaning without adding syntax, formatting, or example values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter clearly.
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 the tool searches for crowdfunding campaigns with specific search criteria (company name, campaign name, or platform), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getCrowdfundingCampaignsByCIK which search by CIK, and getLatestCrowdfundingCampaigns which fetches recent campaigns.
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?
Provides implied usage context ('Search for... by company name, campaign name, or platform') but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Given similar sibling tools like getLatestCrowdfundingCampaigns and getCrowdfundingCampaignsByCIK, clearer differentiation would be beneficial.
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.