grant-opportunity-briefProduce a sourced agent-ready brief of up to ten current U.S. federal grant matches, eligibility signals, deadline urgency, award ranges, and next actions. Paid HTTP endpoint: https://genuinegood.online/v1/grants/brief. 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 material behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is a paid HTTP endpoint at a specific URL with a $5.00 USDC price via x402. It also conveys output limits ('up to ten') and that results are 'sourced' and 'current,' which the read-only and idempotent annotations do not capture.
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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first states the deliverable and content, the second gives the endpoint and pricing. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 description lists the output contents and provides endpoint and pricing, which is helpful for a zero-parameter tool. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the HTTP method, response format, or authentication/payment flow beyond the price. It also references a 'linked OpenAPI contract' that is not actually included, leaving some invocation details unresolved.
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?
With zero parameters, the description has no parameter semantics to add, and the baseline of 4 applies. The input schema's reference to a 'linked OpenAPI contract' is vague, but because there are no required parameters, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 ('Produce') and a concrete deliverable ('agent-ready brief of up to ten current U.S. federal grant matches'), and lists the key content areas. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like federal-grant-search or federal-grant-detail, which focus on searching or individual grant detail.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'brief' rather than explicitly stated.
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.