get_business_marketGet selected public market summaries for profile classifications, agencies, and target states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, read-only profile. The description aligns with this (no contradiction) and adds the useful scope of 'public' data and the specific dimensions being summarized. It adds some value by clarifying what class of market data is exposed, though it stops short of describing output format or data freshness.
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 a single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the verb and primary resource. Minor redundancy exists between the title ('market evidence for the connected business') and the description ('public market summaries'), and the word 'selected' is vague, 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with strong annotations, the burden on the description is lighter. However, the single most valuable piece of context—how get_business_market differs from the near-identically-named get_market_summary and what 'evidence' the summaries contain—is absent. Adequate for the tool's simple shape, but a missed opportunity to disambiguate the sibling 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the rubric establishes a baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools. The description's framing of 'classifications, agencies, and target states' gives helpful conceptual context for what the filtered summaries are about, though there is no actual parameter documentation burden to carry here.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get... public market summaries') and adds scoping dimensions ('profile classifications, agencies, and target states') that give the user a concrete sense of what is retrieved. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly-named sibling get_market_summary.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_summary, get_business_profile, or get_business_awards. With 38 siblings and a near-twin in get_market_summary, the absence of any disambiguation is a significant gap. No exclusions, alternatives, or context are given.
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.