x402-endpoints

ted_tenders

Search the official EU TED (Tenders Electronic Daily) for public procurement notices across the 27+ member states — by keywords, buyer country and CPV code. Price: $0.05 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). EU public-procurement tender search via the official TED (Tenders Electronic Daily). Returns notices: publication number, title, buyer name and country, notice type, publication date and link. Filter by keywords, buyer country (ISO-3) and CPV code. For business-development, bid and market-intelligence agents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cpv`	No	CPV code prefix, e.g. '72000000' (IT services)
`limit`	No	Max notices [1-50], e.g. 10
`query`	No	Keywords, e.g. 'cloud software'
`country`	No	Buyer country ISO-3 code, e.g. 'FRA', 'DEU'

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals pricing ($0.05 per call), data source (official TED), and return fields (publication number, title, buyer, etc.), indicating a read-only search. No destructive or auth details needed for this type of tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, front-loads the tool's purpose, and includes essential details (pricing, filters, output fields) in a single paragraph. Minor room for improvement by using bullet points for clarity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields, lists all parameters (covered in schema), provides pricing, and specifies use cases. This is fully adequate for a search tool with clear inputs and outputs.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds general context (filters by keywords, country, CPV) but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. 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 searches EU TED for public procurement notices, specifies the geographic scope, and mentions key filters. It distinguishes this tool from its numerous siblings by focusing on a specific domain (EU public procurement) with no overlap evident.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states this is for business-development, bid, and market-intelligence agents, giving clear use context. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

All x402-endpoints 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources

Need Help?