Searches multiple public databases for a company's funding rounds, investors, and valuations, then extracts candidate round and amount facts for research.
Searches Crunchbase, Tofler, MCA, Pitchbook, Dealroom, and OpenCorporates for a company's funding rounds, investors, and valuation mentions, and extracts candidate round/amount facts from the retrieved text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it searches and extracts information, aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention side effects or modifications, consistent with a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations or data coverage beyond listing sources.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the action and scope. It is well-organized and free of unnecessary words.
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 description lacks details about output format or how the extracted facts are presented. With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the tool's full behavior is under-specified. The purpose is clear, but the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves gaps for an agent.
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 description provides zero coverage of the parameters, despite the 'context' object containing multiple fields like date, listed, sector, and country. None of these are explained. The only implicit reference is 'company' in the phrase 'company's funding rounds'.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: searching multiple databases for funding rounds, investors, and valuation mentions, and extracting candidate facts. It specifies the resource (company funding history) and the sources, making its role distinct from other finance 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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like company_profile or financial_statements. The description implies it is for funding history but does not state conditions or exclusions. Given the large sibling set, more direction would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.