Search EU public procurement notices (official TED — Tenders Electronic Daily), newest first. Returns tender id, title, publication date and a working notice URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Full-text search query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields and the ordering (newest first), which is useful. However, it does not mention any limitations, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). Missing details like rate limits, result structure, or handling of empty results reduce transparency, but the basic behavior is described.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and return information. It is concise with no filler or repetition. Every part adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the return fields and ordering, which helps the agent know what to expect. However, it omits the meaning of the 'limit' parameter and any note on how results are structured (e.g., array of objects). Given the low schema coverage and absence of annotations, the description should have covered these details to be fully contextual.
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 only 50% — only 'query' has a description, while 'limit' does not. The tool description adds no additional meaning for 'limit' (e.g., that it controls result count or pagination). Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, param semantics are weak. The description also does not explain how 'query' interacts with the search beyond 'full-text search', which is already in the schema.
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 it searches EU public procurement notices from the official TED source, lists the returned fields (tender id, title, publication date, notice URL), and notes the sorting order (newest first). This specifies the verb, resource, and scope well. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of the siblings are procurement-related, so differentiation is less critical.
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 provides enough context for when to use the tool (searching EU public procurement notices) without explicit alternatives. It does not state exclusions, but since no sibling tool offers similar functionality, this is acceptable. The description lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is clear and self-contained.
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 are clearly distinct by resource or function, but fx_rates vs us_treasury_fx and entity_resolve vs lei_lookup could both be plausible choices for the same request. Descriptions generally make the boundaries clear, so the overlap is minor rather than systematic.
All names use lowercase_snake_case, but there is no single naming pattern: tools like btc_network, crypto_price, and weather_forecast are noun phrases, while eu_vat_validate, lei_lookup, and sanctions_screen follow an object+operation style. This mixed convention is readable but noticeably inconsistent.
14 tools is within a reasonable range for a multi-provider data server, and most tools cover a distinct data domain. However, kyb_verify_business heavily overlaps the individual VAT, LEI, sanctions, IBAN, and entity tools, and having two FX rate tools makes the set feel slightly broader than necessary.
The main KYB/entity workflow is well covered, but the set has notable gaps: sanctions screening covers only OFAC and UK OFSi, IBAN validation is structural only, and there are no UBO or adverse-media checks. For the broader data-lookup domain, the coverage is decent but not exhaustive.