Skip to main content
Glama

Axiom Agentic Tools

by io.github.0xAxiom

Base Builder Grant Finder

base-builder-grant-finder
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a ranked, deadline-aware list of open Base ecosystem funding programs (grants, accelerators, hackathons, retro-funding). Each result cites source_url, deadline, funding_range_usd, and last_verified_at. Stale entries are flagged. Designed for agents and builders shipping on Base who need a single call to surface the next applicable funding deadline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stageNoCurrent project stage. 'idea' is pre-prototype; 'prototype' has working demo; 'mainnet' has deployed Base contracts; 'scaling' has live users and revenue. Used as an additional eligibility filter against grant stage requirements. Defaults to 'any'.any
categoryYesProject category. Used to match grant program eligibility and scope. 'ai-agent' covers agent infrastructure, autonomous agents, and agent-economy projects; 'tooling' covers dev tools and SDKs; 'any' returns programs that accept all categories. Required.
max_resultsNoMaximum number of ranked program results to return. Programs are scored by match against category, stage, has_live_base_contract, and deadline proximity. Defaults to 10.
has_live_base_contractNoTrue if the project already has at least one deployed contract on Base mainnet. Several grants (Base Builder Grants, Coinbase Developer Grants) score higher for live-on-Base projects. Defaults to false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
resultsYes
evidenceYes
evaluated_atYes
next_check_atNoISO 8601 timestamp suggesting when the caller should re-invoke this tool. Derived from the tool's recurringHint.intervalSeconds.
stale_warningsYes
total_open_programsYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses additional behaviors: results are 'ranked, deadline-aware', 'Stale entries are flagged', and each result 'cites source_url, deadline, funding_range_usd, and last_verified_at'. This adds meaningful context about how the tool behaves beyond what annotations alone convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds a key behavior (staleness flagging), and the third clarifies target audience. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool with rich annotations and an output schema. It explains the return fields, ranking/deadline-awareness, staleness flagging, and the intended use case. It does not need to explain the ranking algorithm or return structure further, as the output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a detailed description. The tool description itself does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing the overall context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource: 'a ranked, deadline-aware list of open Base ecosystem funding programs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on Base funding programs with unique output fields, making it unmistakable what this tool does versus the unrelated siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: 'Designed for agents and builders shipping on Base who need a single call to surface the next applicable funding deadline.' This implies when to use (when seeking Base funding opportunities) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the sibling tools are unrelated, the guidance is sufficient, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Axiom Agentic Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain: revenue auditing, token strategy, grants, gas, security, workflow design, prediction markets, repo health, and wallet balances. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use lowercase hyphenated format, but prefixes vary (agent-, base-, mcp-, etc.) and some are descriptive while others are domain-based. This is mostly consistent but lacks a uniform pattern like verb-noun.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused server. Each tool addresses a distinct need for autonomous agents on Base, and none feel redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The set covers analysis, planning, and monitoring aspects well (revenue, token, grants, gas, security, workflow, odds, repo, portfolio). Missing execution-oriented tools like token deployment or transaction sending, but for an intelligence-focused suite, this is reasonable.

Resources