Skip to main content
Glama

HelpMyAgent

by io.github.helpmyagent
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Public-contract competitors

company_fr_public_contract_competitors

Finds companies winning public contracts on CPV segments shared with the target company using DECP public award data. Use when: Finds companies winning public contracts on CPV segments shared with the target company using DECP public award data. You need companies that win public contracts on CPV segments also observed for the target company. You want procurement-specific competitive signals from DECP award data. Avoid when: You want general comparable companies based on activity, size and geography; use company/fr/peers. You only need the target company’s own awarded public contracts; use company/fr/public-contracts. Limitations: Competition is inferred from shared public-contract CPV segments and is not an official competitive relationship. The result only reflects awards covered by the DECP public dataset. Price: 0.020 USD per call via x402. Paid-call behavior: source records are not modified, but a successful invocation can consume the advertised x402 payment; the payment-required challenge is free, and repeating the tool after a completed paid invocation may require a new payment. Accepted x402 networks: eip155:8453, xrpl:0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of records returned by this call. (minimum 1; maximum 25; default 10).
identifierYesFrench company identifier: 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPublicly available company, person, buyer or record name for this result.
sirenYesNormalized 9-digit French SIREN when available.
existsYesWhether the requested company or public record was found in the checked source.
identifierYesIdentifier supplied for the request, echoed in normalized form when applicable.
competitorsYesStructured value returned for “competitors” as defined by this API contract.
limitationsNoKnown interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result.
cpv_segmentsYesStructured value returned for “cpv segments” as defined by this API contract.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured input parameters for the company/fr/public-contract-competitors API."
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifier / description
      Added value: +"French company identifier: 9-digit SIREN or 14-digit SIRET."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of records returned by this call. (minimum 1; maximum 25; default 10)."
    • addedOutput schema / description
      Added value: +"Structured result returned by the company/fr/public-contract-competitors API."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / competitors / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “competitors” as defined by this API contract."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / cpv_segments / description
      Added value: +"Structured value returned for “cpv segments” as defined by this API contract."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / exists / description
      Added value: +"Whether the requested company or public record was found in the checked source."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / identifier / description
      Added value: +"Identifier supplied for the request, echoed in normalized form when applicable."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / limitations / description
      Added value: +"Known interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / name
      Previous value: -[]New value: +{
+  "description": "Publicly available company, person, buyer or record name for this result."
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / siren
      Previous value: -[]New value: +{
+  "description": "Normalized 9-digit French SIREN when available."
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all 'false', so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the paid-call mechanism (x402 payment consumption, free challenge, repeat-payment requirement), states that source records are not modified, and adds limitations about inferred competition and DECP coverage. This adds substantial context beyond the minimal annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured into clear sections (purpose, use/avoid, limitations, payment details) with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information, especially the payment behavior and accepted networks which are critical for an agent to avoid unexpected costs. 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?

This tool has a paid call, specific data source, and limitations - the description covers all of these. It explains what it does, when to use/avoid, pricing, payment behavior, and network requirements. An output schema exists, so return values need no description. The description is fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema - it implies the identifier refers to the 'target company' but doesn't go into further parameter behavior or formatting. This is adequate but not exceptional given how thoroughly the schema describes both parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Finds'), resource ('companies winning public contracts'), and the distinguishing scope ('CPV segments shared with the target company using DECP public award data'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like company_fr_peers and company_fr_public_contracts by naming the exact use case.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' sections list concrete conditions and name two alternative tools (company/fr/peers for general peers, company/fr/public-contracts for own contracts). This is textbook routing guidance.

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

All HelpMyAgent toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources