Fetch recent European public procurement award winners, contract award values, AI conviction scoring (0-99), and company catalysts for investor dealflow and competitor monitoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of signals to retrieve (default: 10, max: 50) | |
| country | No | Two-letter ISO country code of winning company or buyer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Fetch', implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, data freshness, or any side effects. It also doesn't explain whether the tool aggregates multiple records or returns a single item. The list of returned fields is useful but that's more about output than behavioral traits.
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 that immediately states the action and then lists the key data points. There is no wasted wording, and the purpose is immediately clear. This is an example of efficient, well-structured description.
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 output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. It does: 'award winners, contract award values, AI conviction scoring, and company catalysts'. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the return type. However, it doesn't clarify whether the output is a list, how the 'recent' timeframe is defined, or whether country filtering applies to the winner or buyer. The description is reasonably complete but leaves a few minor gaps.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for both parameters ('limit' and 'country'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('European public procurement award winners') along with the specific data points (award values, AI conviction scoring, company catalysts). This is distinct from the sibling tools (get_grant_details, search_grants), which focus on grants, so there's no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'for investor dealflow and competitor monitoring'. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context implies it's for contract award signals, and the sibling names make the difference obvious. A clear exclusion or comparison would push this to 5.
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.