HelpMyAgent

French Public Contract Awards

procurement_fr_awards

Searches awarded French public contracts using DECP filters for CPV, location, buyer, holder, dates and amounts. Use when: Search French public contracts that have already been awarded using CPV, location, buyer, holder, date or amount filters. Avoid when: Use procurement/fr/search for currently open BOAMP tenders. Use company/fr/public-contracts when you only need contracts awarded to one known French company. Limitations: Coverage follows the published DECP dataset and source fields. Price: 0.010 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

Name	Required	Description
`buyer`	No	Public-buyer name or identifier used to restrict procurement results. (minimum length 2; maximum length 200).
`limit`	No	Maximum number of records returned by this call. (minimum 1; maximum 50; default 20).
`holder`	No	Optional value for “holder” as defined by this API contract.
`date_to`	No	Optional value for “date to” as defined by this API contract.
`date_from`	No	Optional value for “date from” as defined by this API contract.
`cpv_prefix`	No	Optional CPV prefix used to restrict procurement records to a purchasing segment.
`department`	No	Optional French department code used to restrict results geographically.
`max_amount`	No	Optional value for “max amount” as defined by this API contract. (minimum 0).
`min_amount`	No	Optional value for “min amount” as defined by this API contract. (minimum 0).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`awards`	Yes	Structured value returned for “awards” as defined by this API contract.
`filters`	Yes	Structured value returned for “filters” as defined by this API contract.
`truncated`	Yes	Whether additional matching records existed beyond the returned result limit.
`limitations`	No	Known interpretation, source-coverage or freshness limitations for this result.
`total_count`	Yes	Total number of matching records reported by the source or endpoint.
`generated_at`	Yes	UTC timestamp at which this derived result was generated.
`source_status`	Yes	Availability status of the relevant upstream public source. (allowed values: ok, unavailable).
`returned_count`	Yes	Number of records included in this response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "filters",
-  "source_status",
-  "total_count",
-  "returned_count",
-  "truncated",
-  "awards",
-  "generated_at",
-  "limitations"
-]New value: +[
+  "filters",
+  "source_status",
+  "total_count",
+  "returned_count",
+  "truncated",
+  "awards",
+  "generated_at"
+]

AddedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly covers paid-call behavior, the free payment challenge, possible repeated payment, non-modification of source records, and dataset coverage limitations. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides accurate side-effect context.

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 well organized with the purpose front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, limitations, pricing, paid-call behavior, and networks. However, the 'Use when' section largely repeats the first sentence ('already awarded' vs 'awarded'), creating mild redundancy that prevents a top score.

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?

For a 9-parameter search tool with an output schema and several sibling procurement tools, the description covers purpose, filter categories, alternatives, limitations, payment side effects, and accepted x402 networks. Since an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description.

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 description coverage is 100%: every parameter has a description and constraints. The tool description only groups parameters into categories like CPV, location, buyer, holder, dates, and amounts, which adds no meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Searches awarded French public contracts using DECP filters for CPV, location, buyer, holder, dates and amounts' — a specific verb, resource, and filter list. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools in the Avoid section, so an agent can tell it apart without opening their schemas.

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?

The description provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, naming precise alternatives: procurement/fr/search for open BOAMP tenders and company/fr/public-contracts for contracts awarded to one known French company. This is clear conditional routing that helps an agent select the correct tool.

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

All HelpMyAgent tools Inspect

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

Need Help?