get_opportunityFull normalised record plus the document inventory. Use before advising on a bid; a search card is not enough. Follow with read_document for eligibility text. LT: perkančioji organizacija, skelbimas, kelio darbai; grants: dotacijos, finansavimas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| opportunity_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return scope (normalized record plus document inventory) and implies that eligibility text is NOT included by pointing to read_document. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens when both parameters are supplied.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core return value appears first, followed by actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, including the domain-specific Lithuanian vocabulary note, which adds contextual value without bloating the text.
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 low-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a useful overview and workflow, but it lacks parameter disambiguation. The return value is only loosely described as 'full normalized record plus document inventory', which may not be sufficient for an agent to interpret the response correctly.
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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information at all. It never explains the difference between 'id' and 'opportunity_id', whether they are aliases, or which one should be supplied. The parameter names are mildly self-descriptive but insufficient to reliably guide a correct call.
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 resource ('one opportunity') and clearly distinguishes the full record from a 'search card', which maps to the sibling search_opportunities tool. The title and first sentence together establish exactly what the tool retrieves: a full normalized record plus the document inventory.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use before advising on a bid'), an explicit exclusion ('a search card is not enough'), and a follow-up step ('Follow with read_document for eligibility text'). This provides clear operational context without needing to infer anything.
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 bounded job: auth start/verify, search vs. full record, workflow list vs. workflow detail, and account status. An agent is unlikely to confuse any two tools because resource and action boundaries are distinct.
Six tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: connect_start, connect_verify, get_opportunity, get_workflow, list_workflows, search_opportunities. The exception is 'whoami', a single recognizable token that breaks the verb_noun pattern but is still consistent in style.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an auth-gated EU tender and grant search service. There is no redundancy, and each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow from authentication through search, retrieval, playbooks, and account limits.
The documented workflow is search_opportunities → get_opportunity → read_document, but read_document is absent from the exposed toolset despite being described as the required follow-up for eligibility text. This creates a dead end that will cause agent failures in the core use case. The rest of the surface—search, detail retrieval, workflow guidance, and account introspection—is otherwise reasonably complete.