grant-eligibility-fitRank current U.S. federal opportunities against a mission profile using transparent keyword, deadline, and applicant-type signals; returns reasons and official records. Paid HTTP endpoint: https://genuinegood.online/v1/grants/fit. Price: $5.00 USDC via x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 adds important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it is a paid endpoint costing $5.00 USDC via x402 on Base, it provides transparent ranking signals, and it returns reasons and official records. These cost and payment traits are not present in the annotations, and they materially affect an agent's decision to call the tool.
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 with no filler: the first sentence states the core function and outputs, the second gives endpoint and pricing. Key facts are front-loaded and 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?
For a paid external API with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, endpoint URL, cost, payment method, and what the tool returns. It does not fully specify the request format or authentication, but it references an OpenAPI contract, so the core usage information is sufficient for an agent to proceed.
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 schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still hints at the operational inputs by mentioning 'keyword, deadline, and applicant-type signals,' which helps an agent understand what a request likely contains. It points to an OpenAPI contract for the exact schema rather than documenting parameters inline, which is reasonable given no explicit schema params exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('Rank') and names the resource: 'current U.S. federal opportunities against a mission profile.' It also lists the matching signals and return content ('returns reasons and official records'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the 'transparent keyword, deadline, and applicant-type signals' phrasing differentiates it from simple detail/brief lookups.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to prioritize or rank federal grants by fit to a mission profile. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative sibling tools or conditions for choosing them. The usage context is understandable but left to inference.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct stages: search, detail, preflight, and access pass are clearly separated. The only real tension is between grant-eligibility-fit and grant-opportunity-brief, since both match current opportunities and surface eligibility/deadline signals; the descriptions distinguish ranking/reasons from narrative briefs, but an agent could still pick the wrong one.
Names are consistently lowercase hyphenated noun phrases, but the prefix pattern splits between federal-grant-* and grant-*, and grant-api-30-day-pass mixes in API and a duration. This is readable but not a single predictable verb_noun convention, so it feels slightly inconsistent.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a grants discovery/analysis service: raw search and detail, screening, ranking, briefing, and an access-pass tool. Each tool fills a distinct role in the workflow without the surface feeling bloated or thin.
The server covers the core pipeline from discovering opportunities, retrieving official records, evaluating fit, and producing briefs. It lacks conveniences like saved shortlists or batch comparison, but agents can assemble those from search/detail outputs, so the gaps are minor.