PREMIUM. Full GrailQualify appraisal + eligibility-prep payload: live valuation with all comps & scrape date, scheduled-insurance under-coverage gap, grading worth-it call — each rule-cited with authority hand-off. Pay-per-call via x402 (USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| niche | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| perItemSpecialLimit | No | Your home-policy per-item valuables limit (USD). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is pay-per-call via x402 (USDC on Base), which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions 'rule-cited with authority hand-off'. However, no annotations exist, so the description partly fills the gap. It does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions for a premium service.
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 dense sentence containing multiple clauses and concepts. While it packs information, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points, separate sections). It is functional but not optimally concise or scannable for an AI agent.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, multiple outputs implied) and no output schema. The description mentions components (comps, insurance gap, grading call) but does not explain the output format, how results are returned, or how to interpret the appraisal. This leaves the agent with incomplete context to correctly handle the response.
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 only 33% (only perItemSpecialLimit has a description). The tool description does not explain what the required 'query' parameter or the optional 'niche' enum represent. Given low coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema. The 'perItemSpecialLimit' description is present but the overall parameter semantics are underinformed.
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 specifies a premium appraisal tool that provides live valuation, insurance gap analysis, grading worth-it call, and rule citations. It indicates the resource (GrailQualify appraisal) and actionable outputs. However, the title is null and the description lacks a distinct verb (e.g., 'returns', 'generates'), and it does not differentiate from the sibling 'grail_value' tool, which may offer a simpler service.
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. Despite having siblings like 'grail_value' and 'qualify_check', the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The 'PREMIUM' label hints at cost but does not help in decision-making between 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.
Each tool targets a distinct domain (benefits, citizenship, charity care, employer benefits, etc.) with clear descriptions that prevent overlap. The only potential confusion between grail_value and grail_appraise is resolved by their free vs. premium distinction.
All tools use snake_case with a consistent pattern of domain prefix followed by action (e.g., charity_care_check, missed_credits_scan). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools cover a broad range of benefit/grant/visa/citizenship checkers without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear, non-overlapping purpose, earning its place.
The server covers major categories of financial assistance (federal/state benefits, tax credits, R&D grants, charity care, employer benefits, down payment assistance) plus citizenship and visas. While specialized areas may be missing, the surface is comprehensive for a grant-finder.