resolve_identifierResolve notice, solicitation, award, PIID, UEI, CAGE, NAICS, PSC, or FAR identifiers with exact matches first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| types | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral nuance ('exact matches first') but does not disclose result format, pagination, or type-specific handling, which would be valuable for a resolver. With strong annotations, 3 is appropriate.
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, dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the enumerated identifier types are all necessary context. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise while preserving key information.
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?
Although the purpose is clear, the description lacks parameter details and return behavior. With no output schema, an agent cannot determine what a successful resolution returns or how to interpret multiple matches. The `types` parameter, in particular, is left completely undocumented, so the tool is not fully invocable from the description alone.
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%, and the description does not explain the `q`, `limit`, or `types` parameters. It indirectly implies `q` accepts the enumerated identifier types, but it does not clarify input format, the `types` filtering behavior, or `limit` constraints. This is a clear gap in parameter understanding.
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 ('resolve') and explicitly names the resource scope ('federal contract identifier'), plus enumerates the identifier types (notice, solicitation, award, PIID, UEI, CAGE, NAICS, PSC, FAR). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools and clarifies its exact-match behavior.
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 list of identifier types and the phrase 'exact matches first' strongly imply the tool is intended for resolving known identifiers, contrasting with broader search tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.
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.