defi_get_raises

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool 'gets' data. It does not mention the return format, data source, recency, pagination, or any limitations. Although 'Get' implies a read-only operation, essential behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, short sentence (10 words) that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what 'funding rounds and raises' entails and what the response will contain. The current description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's capabilities, such as whether it lists specific funding events, amounts, or dates. This is a significant gap given the lack of other structured metadata.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately does not need to add parameter details since none exist.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('funding rounds and raises') within the crypto/DeFi domain, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity on what constitutes a 'raise' (e.g., VC rounds, token sales) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling covers this exact resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description only states what it does, with no mention of use cases, filters, or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it over other defi-related tools.

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