Return the current ranked 'Rising Contractors / Likely M&A Targets' feed — small/mid federal contractors showing the strongest leading acquisition signals, refreshed daily.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 20). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the feed is 'refreshed daily' and 'current ranked', but with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behaviors such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination details.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no superfluous words. Every phrase adds value: 'current ranked', 'small/mid federal contractors', 'strongest leading acquisition signals', 'refreshed daily'.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (feed), focus (small/mid federal contractors), update frequency (daily), and ranking basis (acquisition signals). Minor omission: explanation of ranking criteria.
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 already describes the 'limit' parameter with 'Max rows (default 20).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'Rising Contractors / Likely M&A Targets' feed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'contractor_signals' (different signal type) and 'search_awards' (different concept).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contractor_signals' or 'search_awards'. The description implies it is for getting rising contractors, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one retrieves a detailed signal profile for a specific contractor, one provides a ranked feed of rising contractors, and one searches federal awards. No overlap or ambiguity.
Tool names follow a general pattern of lowercase snake_case, but the stylistic role varies: 'contractor_signals' is a noun phrase, 'rising_contractors' is adjective-noun, and 'search_awards' is verb-noun. This inconsistency, while minor, breaks a strict verb_noun pattern.
Three tools is appropriate for the focused domain of government contractor signals and award data. The count is minimal but covers the key operations: individual signal, aggregated feed, and search. Could arguably benefit from one or two additional tools (e.g., detailed award view), but not excessive.
The tools cover the primary use cases: retrieving an individual signal profile, accessing a ranked feed, and searching awards. However, there is no tool to retrieve detailed information on a specific award or to filter signals by criteria beyond what is embedded in the tools. This is a minor gap but does not severely hinder functionality.