US Federal Grants Finder MCP

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits — default window of 30 days, ascending deadline sort, restriction to 'posted' grants, and (via the 'PRO.' marker plus the access_token param) that a subscriber credential is required — but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or behavior when no grants match.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words, and the two most filtering-relevant facts (keyword scope, N days) come first. Leading with the opaque 'PRO.' tag is mildly wasteful, but the rest is efficiently 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only specification an agent has, yet it omits keyword matching semantics and any hint of result size or pagination. For a three-parameter pro search endpoint that is too thin to call confidently.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies within_days (window size, default 30) but leaves keywords undefined — no indication of whether terms are ANDed, ORed, or matched against title, funder, or abstract — which is the single most consequential input for a search tool.

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 pairs a specific resource (posted grants matching your keywords) with a specific scope (closing within N days) and states the ordering (soonest first), which goes well beyond the bare name 'closing_soon'. It does not name the sibling tools (grant_search, grant_search_full), so an agent must infer the distinction from scope alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to grant_search or grant_search_full, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the cryptic 'PRO.' prefix. The deadline-tracking intent is implied by the name and the 'within N days' phrasing but never spelled out as a selection rule.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits — cost ('FREE'), result cap ('top 3'), and scope ('open and forecasted US federal grants') — but says nothing about rate limits, authentication, result fields, or pagination, which would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. 'FREE' and the result cap are surfaced immediately, and no sentence is extraneous.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: cost, coverage, keyword examples, and result count. It could be more complete by explicitly routing users to grant_search_full for exhaustive results, but nothing critical for a basic invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the single required parameter is a keyword and providing concrete examples ('broadband', 'small business', 'opioid'), which meaningfully clarifies expected input beyond the bare string type.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching open and forecasted US federal grants by keyword. It distinguishes itself from grant_search_full only implicitly via 'top 3', which suggests a limited result set, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling.

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 'FREE' label and 'top 3' result limit imply this is a quick, low-cost lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus grant_search_full or closing_soon. Conditions for choosing alternatives are left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful result cap of 100, but says nothing about authentication requirements (a subscriber token is required per the schema), pagination, rate limits, or whether results are ranked or truncated when more than 100 matches exist — a critical behavior for a capped search.

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?

Two compact clauses with no filler; the result cap and filter capabilities are front-loaded. The leading 'PRO.' is an unexplained fragment that costs a beat of comprehension but not much space.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage. The description should at minimum explain include_forecasted, the delimiter format for agencies, and the subscriber-token requirement; instead it covers only keywords, agencies, and eligibilities, leaving an agent unable to reason about half the inputs.

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 only 40%, but the description earns real credit by decoding eligibility codes ('12' nonprofits, '23' small business, '25' others) that the schema leaves as a bare string, and by clarifying 'agencies' as agency codes. It leaves include_forecasted completely unexplained and only gestures at the keyword semantics ('several keywords').

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 makes clear this returns grants matched against multiple keywords, capped at 100, with agency and eligibility filtering. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('Up to 100 grants for several keywords') and it never contrasts itself with the sibling grant_search, so an agent can't tell from the text why this variant exists — 'PRO' is the only hint.

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 statement of when to prefer this over grant_search or closing_soon, and no note that it is the premium/subscriber tier beyond the cryptic 'PRO' token. The only usage-adjacent signal is the access_token field in the schema, which the description never reinforces.

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