grantpulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses payment requirements ($0.10 per call via USDC on Base mainnet) and data sources (Grants.gov, USASpending.gov, Claude), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 somewhat long and mixes high-level purpose with endpoint list and payment details. It is front-loaded but could be more concise by separating the endpoint list into a structured format.

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 19 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively. It does not explain parameter usage per endpoint, making it incomplete for a complex multi-action tool.

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 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions; it lists endpoints but does not clarify which parameters are relevant per action or how they interact.

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 the tool is for 'Grant discovery and application intelligence' and lists 10 endpoints. It distinguishes itself from sibling *pulse tools by focusing on grants, but the description is cluttered with global coverage and payment details that could be separated.

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 the tool is for grant-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like other *pulse tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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