Fetch a PitchBook fund record by ID from the pitchbook-funds dataset to return clean JSON fund data.
Get a PitchBook fund from dataset. Returns one crawled PitchBook fund record by id from dataset id enum value pitchbook-funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | PitchBook fund id, e.g. 19719-91F |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'one crawled' record, implying a read-only fetch and indicating data origin, but it doesn't address error handling, rate limits, freshness, or the structure of the returned record.
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 short sentences, with the main action in the first sentence and clarifying details in the second. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 simple single-record lookup, the description adequately conveys the purpose, source dataset, and return type. However, the lack of an output schema means the description could do more to describe what a 'fund record' contains, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.
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 schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter with an example. The description only restates that retrieval is 'by id' and adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('PitchBook fund'), specifies it returns a single record by id, and names the exact dataset enum value. This distinguishes it from sibling search/facets 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?
The context is clear: use this tool when you have a specific PitchBook fund id and need the crawled record from the 'pitchbook-funds' dataset. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like datasets_pitchbook_funds_search or pitchbook_fund, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.