Retrieve a single funding record by its ID to view details from a funding search result. Costs $0.02 when found; missing IDs are free.
Read one funding record by id. Costs $0.02 when found (free records are used first); a missing id is free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The funding record id from a `funding_search` result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the $0.02 charge on a hit, free-record prioritization, and the free miss. It omits auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.
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 no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the cost caveat follows as supporting detail. 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?
With no output schema, the description should signal what comes back; 'Read one funding record' plus the 'when found'/'missing id' language adequately conveys the success and miss cases, and the pricing detail covers the main hidden cost. It gives no indication of auth or error conditions beyond the missing id.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a uuid sourced from funding_search. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Read'), resource ('one funding record'), and access path ('by id'), which cleanly separates it from funding_search, the only sibling touching the same resource. An agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the description conveys that this is the id-based counterpart to searching, and the pricing note hints that callers benefit from free records being consumed first. There is no explicit 'use this after funding_search returns an id' statement or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.