Value a collector's item from live retail + sold comps (DropWatch price-history) and return a confidence-tiered estimate with the comp shops and scrape date. Free preview of the value; the full appraisal+eligibility prep payload is the premium tool grail_appraise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| niche | No | ||
| query | Yes | Item name, be specific (set + type). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output includes a confidence-tiered estimate with comp shops and scrape date, and implies it is a read operation. However, it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool has 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes the output (confidence-tiered estimate with comp shops and scrape date) and distinguishes from the sibling. However, it omits guidance on optional parameters and error handling.
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 coverage is 50% (only 'query' has a description). The description does not explain the 'niche' parameter or its enum values, nor does it elaborate on how parameters affect behavior. It adds only general context about valuation but not parameter specifics.
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 the tool 'Value a collector's item' using live retail and sold comps, returning a confidence-tiered estimate. It distinguishes from sibling 'grail_appraise' which is the premium tool.
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?
It explicitly mentions 'Free preview' and contrasts with the premium tool 'grail_appraise', guiding when to use each. However, it does not explicitly list scenarios where this tool should not be used.
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.