get_market_summarySummarize selected public award and opportunity signals for a market slice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| psc | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| set_aside | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description does not disclose what 'signals' means, whether the summary is an aggregate or a list, how the optional parameters interact, or what happens if no filters are provided. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 sentence and not bloated, but it is under-specified. It doesn't front-load any critical usage constraints or parameter details, and while concise, the brevity sacrifices essential information, making it no more informative than a high-level summary.
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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to effectively use the tool. It does not explain what the returned summary contains, how to interpret a 'market slice,' or any constraints on parameter combinations, leaving significant gaps in context.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for its five properties (psc, naics, state, agency, set_aside), and the description does not mention or explain any of them. Since the description fails to compensate for this gap, an agent cannot understand the meaning or purpose of these parameters or how to construct a valid query.
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 uses the verb 'Summarize' and identifies the resource as 'public award and opportunity signals' for a 'market slice,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, search, or retrieve specific records. However, the term 'market slice' is vague and could benefit from explicit mention of the filter dimensions (psc, naics, state, agency, set_aside).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_awards, get_award, or search_opportunities. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context solely from the tool's name.
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.