research_fund_raises

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds return fields and a use case, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination limits or data freshness. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrases. The first sentence names the action and source; the second lists expected output fields and a use case. Every word contributes value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the primary return fields (project name, date, USD amount, funding round type, lead investors). For a simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations, this information is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema ('Maximum number of results to return'). The description offers no additional parameter detail, but with 100% schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 fetches fundraising and investment round data from DefiLlama, with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource, and lists return fields (project name, date, USD amount, round type, lead investors). This distinguishes it from sibling research tools like research_token_holders or research_news.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through its scope (fundraising rounds) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, such as 'for security audits use research_contract_security'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.