tendfeed

find_winnable_lanes

Read-only

DEPRECATED — use find_low_competition_lanes instead; this alias behaves identically and stays available for existing clients. The old name wrongly implied a win forecast: TendFeed measures observed competition density, not the probability that you win. Data/research tool over TED (Tenders Electronic Daily, CC BY 4.0). No guarantee of award.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many top-ranked lanes to return (sorted by beachhead_score)
`min_n`	No	Drop lanes thinner than this (honest: small n = noise)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about being a data/research tool with no award guarantee, clarifying that it measures competition density, not win probability. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise, front-loaded with deprecation notice, and each sentence serves a purpose: deprecation, alternative, caveat, data source, disclaimer. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's return (top-ranked lanes by beachhead_score), data source (TED), and limitations. Complete for a simple read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra context ('sorted by beachhead_score', 'honest: small n = noise'), but does not significantly expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it measures observed competition density from TED data. It explicitly notes deprecation and directs to the correct sibling tool, distinguishing itself from find_low_competition_lanes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: use find_low_competition_lanes instead; warns that the old name implied a win forecast which this tool does not provide. Includes data source and disclaimer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All tendfeed tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Two tools (find_low_competition_lanes and find_winnable_lanes) are explicitly identical, with the latter deprecated. This creates confusion for an agent trying to select the correct tool, despite the deprecation note. The other two tools are distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (find_*, get_*, search_*), but find_winnable_lanes is a deprecated alias with a name that implies a win forecast, which contradicts its actual function. This inconsistency reduces clarity.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a server focused on EU tender analysis and competition detection. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels appropriate for the domain without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflow: identifying low-competition lanes, searching tenders with verdicts, and retrieving detailed verdicts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no raw tender search without verdict), but overall the surface is sufficient for its research purpose.

Resources

Need Help?