search_live_capital_opportunitiesSearch current, source-linked AFA and Grants.gov records. Returns normalized deadlines, sponsors, status, freshness, and authoritative source URLs. Discovery is not an offer of funding or an eligibility decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| closing_within_days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds a disclaimer about the results not being an offer or eligibility decision, which provides some context about the nature of the output, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits beyond what annotations imply.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences, and is well-structured with a clear statement of purpose and a final disclaimer. No superfluous information is included.
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 provides some output details (deadlines, sponsors, status, freshness, URLs) and a disclaimer, but it lacks essential context: it does not explain what 'AFA' means, it does not describe the data source or coverage, and it omits any explanation of the search parameters. The overall completeness is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
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 does not mention any of the five parameters. The schema has no descriptions, so the tool definition offers no guidance on how to use 'query', 'status', 'sort', 'limit', or 'closing_within_days'. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 states it searches capital opportunities and returns normalized data, but the abbreviation 'AFA' is undefined and the term 'source-linked' is vague. It partially distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_venture_resources, but not fully.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this search is preferred over other search or retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.