The funded sub-initiative ledger for a state: who is funded, for what, with dollars and RFA timing. tier 'golden' = fidelity-verified; tier 'abstract' = integrity-verified but preliminary, attribute as such.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | filter by keyword in name/description | |
| state | Yes | ||
| cursor | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content (tiers and data fields) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The explanation of tiers adds value beyond the schema.
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 at two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding tier details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the output's two-tier distinction but omits details on pagination (cursor), filtering (tag), and the complete return structure. It is minimally complete for a generic ledger retrieval but lacks depth for complex use cases.
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 33% (only 'state' is described implicitly). The description does not add meaning to parameters like 'tag' or 'cursor' beyond what the schema provides. For a low-coverage scenario, the description fails to compensate, leaving key parameters unexplained.
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 it retrieves a funded sub-initiative ledger for a state, detailing the content (who, what, dollars, RFA timing) and explaining tier labels. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the sub-initiative focus, though it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like get_state_profile or search_programs.
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. The description implies usage when needing funded sub-initiative ledger data for a state, but it lacks explicit context, exclusions, or mentions of sibling 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 aspect: document metadata, state profiles, sub-initiative ledgers, deadlines, program search, and cryptographic verification. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, verify_) in snake_case, with no deviations.
6 tools is well-scoped for a focused data-access server, covering key query operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers core data retrieval needs: documents, profiles, ledgers, deadlines, search, and verification. The references to follow-up tools indicate thoughtful integration.
