UK Tender Alerts MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral facts: the default window of 14 days and the sort order (soonest first). It omits the subscription/auth requirement implied by 'PRO' and the access_token parameter, and says nothing about return format or pagination, leaving real gaps for a read tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the scope and default front-loaded and no filler. The 'PRO.' prefix is terse but conveys a paywall signal efficiently.

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?

The description covers the time window and ordering but leaves the required profile parameter, the auth/subscription requirement, and the return shape unexplained for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates for the undocumented within_days parameter by stating its meaning and default (next N days, default 14). The required 'profile' array parameter remains completely undefined in both schema and description, which is a notable gap.

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 (matches with deadlines in the next N days) and adds scope and ordering (default 14, soonest first). It does not name the sibling tools (new_since, tender_match, tender_match_full), so the agent must infer when this is the right one.

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 'closing soon' concept plus the next-N-days window implies the use case (upcoming deadlines), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not clause and no reference to the sibling tools as alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the default time window and the 'PRO' (subscriber) tier implication, which pairs with the access_token param, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the filter semantics. The 'PRO.' prefix is terse but conveys a tier requirement; otherwise there is no wasted 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 4-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the core filtering behavior but omits return shape, result volume, and any subscriber/auth constraints beyond the word 'PRO'.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented, including the 24h default for 'since'. The description adds only that the profile is a keyword profile; it does not explain the undocumented 'profile' array's expected values or behavior.

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?

States a specific resource and filter: tenders published since a given date, scoped to a keyword profile, with the default window named. The 'since' filter implicitly separates it from closing_soon and tender_match, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Daily check' hints at the intended cadence (polling for new tenders), which is useful context for choosing this over the other tender tools. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the cases this tool doesn't cover.

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

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses the data source (Contracts Finder), that results are live/open, and critically that output is capped at 3 newest results, which prevents an agent from expecting a complete listing. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, and what happens when nothing matches.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the 'FREE' marker and the result cap are both placed early. The telegraphic dash construction is slightly terse but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers source, matching inputs, and the size of the returned set. Only the behavior on zero matches and region value validation remain unstated, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples. The description adds only that region is optional and that matching is keyword-based, which is the baseline expected when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States the resource precisely (live open UK public-sector tenders from Contracts Finder) and the result scope (top 3 newest, matched by keywords and optional region). It implicitly signals it is the truncated variant of tender_match_full via 'top 3 newest', but never names that sibling, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

'FREE' hints at a cost tradeoff, but the description never states when to prefer this over tender_match_full, closing_soon, or new_since, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the sibling names alone.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — the result is capped at 100 open matches — and flags the PRO tier, but says nothing about read-only behavior, what happens if more than 100 match (truncation vs. pagination), token/auth failure modes, or rate limits.

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?

A compact, front-loaded statement with the scope and the cap stated before the optional filter. The leading "PRO." token is cryptic but short; nearly every phrase carries information.

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 usefully lists the return fields and the 100-item cap. It still leaves the agent without the meaning of the PRO requirement, behavior past 100 matches, and any alternative for paging or narrowing by date.

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 coverage is 75%, with profile and region described in the schema. The description adds that min_value is an optional filter (schema gives no description for it), but does not state its unit or currency, and only loosely restates profile as "several keyword sets + regions".

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 gives a specific verb/resource ("All open matches... for a saved profile") plus the returned fields (values, deadlines, days left), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tender_match or closing_soon, so the agent must guess why there is both a match and a match_full.

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?

"PRO" and "for a saved profile" imply the premium/token-gated use case, and "Optional min_value filter" hints at narrowing results. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over tender_match, closing_soon or new_since, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the implied subscription.

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