find_recompetesFind awards whose period-of-performance dates suggest a possible recompete. Results are inferences, not confirmed solicitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| psc | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| set_aside | No | ||
| recipient_uei | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these annotations by stating that results are 'inferences' drawn from period-of-performance dates, not confirmed solicitations. This clarifies the heuristic nature and incomplete consistency of results, which is valuable for the agent.
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?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded, immediately stating the core purpose and the key caveat about inference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 gives the essential purpose and result type, but lacks information about result format, pagination, or parameter usage. Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, it could benefit from explaining the return structure or common filters. It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves gaps for a complex parameter set.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the input schema provides no property descriptions. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the 9 parameters (e.g., from/to as date range, naics, set_aside). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description omits all parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from names and types.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find awards whose period-of-performance dates suggest a possible recompete.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('awards') with a distinct filter (dates suggesting recompete). It also clarifies what the results are not ('not confirmed solicitations'), which differentiates it from sibling search tools.
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 description implies usage for identifying potential recompete candidates based on dates, and the phrase 'not confirmed solicitations' warns against treating results as confirmed opportunities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_awards or get_opportunities, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear boundaries (e.g., get_award vs search_awards, get_business_profile vs get_vendor). Some overlap exists in pairs like find_recompetes/find_recompetes_for_business and search_opportunities/search_opportunities_for_business, though the latter are differentiated by profile context.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, update_, watch_, save_, etc.) with no stylistic deviations. Naming is highly predictable across the entire set.
At 39 tools, the surface is excessively large. While the domain is broad, many tools could be combined or parameterized (e.g., get_business_awards and get_vendor_awards, multiple search variants). This creates overhead for agents and dilutes focus.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: opportunity/award searching and retrieval, business profile updates, saved searches, watches, exclusions, and reference data. Minor gaps such as award amendments or more granular exclusion handling exist, but the surface is fundamentally complete.