Return the firms with the most recent award velocity in a NAICS (and optional agency) lane — i.e. the likely bidders on any recompete in that lane, ranked by recent wins and dollars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 15. | |
| naics | Yes | ||
| agency | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description lacks behavioral details like data recency, caching, authentication, or output specifics beyond ranking. Only discloses purpose and ranking criteria.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence with clarifying clause. Front-loaded verb and resource. No excess verbiage.
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?
Adequate for a list tool with moderate complexity, but missing output shape, limit default behavior, and agency format constraints. No annotations to supplement.
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?
Description adds context to 'naics' and 'agency' parameters by linking them to 'lane', but does not compensate for low schema coverage (33%)—e.g., no format guidance for agency or limit semantics beyond 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?
Clearly states the tool returns firms with award velocity in a NAICS lane, explains what that means (likely bidders), and specifies ranking criteria. Differentiates from siblings by focusing on competitors.
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?
Implicitly suggests use for finding likely bidders in a lane, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like 'expiring_recompetes' or 'predict_recompete'.
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 targets a distinct aspect: listing expiring contracts with predictions, identifying likely bidders in a lane, and predicting a specific recompete winner. There is no functional overlap.
All names use snake_case and follow a descriptive pattern (adjective_noun, noun_noun, verb_noun). Minor inconsistency in part of speech but overall readable and predictable.
Three tools tightly cover the recompete pipeline: pipeline feed, competitive landscape, and winner prediction. This is well-scoped for the domain without bloat.
Core workflow is complete: list expiring, assess competitors, predict winner. A tool for detailed contract info would be a minor addition, but the surface supports the stated purpose well.