Search open EU public procurement tenders (TED) by keywords, CPV and country. Paid via x402.
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The purpose is clearly stated as searching open EU/EEA public procurement tenders.
The single tool name search_tenders follows a clear and predictable verb_noun convention. There are no competing naming styles to create inconsistency.
One tool is borderline thin for a server whose domain involves tender search and likely follow-up retrieval. While it may cover the core search need, the absence of companion tools makes the set feel under-scoped.
The search tool returns useful fields and links, but there is no tool to retrieve a tender by notice ID or fetch full notice details. This notable gap limits deeper workflows after an initial search.
Search open EU/EEA public procurement tenders from TED (Official Journal S): keywords, CPV codes, buyer countries, minimum days to deadline. Returns notice ID, title, buyer, country, CPV, deadline, estimated value, procedure and links, newest first. Lead data for B2B sales agents. Use when finding open public procurement tenders in the EU/EEA that match a company's products, keywords, CPV codes or target countries. Paid per call via x402 (USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpv | No | Comma-separated CPV codes | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| query | No | Keywords | |
| countries | No | Comma-separated ISO2 buyer countries | |
| payment_signature | No | x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements. | |
| min_days_to_deadline | No | Minimum days left to deadline |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers substantive facts: results are sorted 'newest first', the returned fields are enumerated, and the call is 'Paid per call via x402 (USDC on Base)'. The payment model is critical for an agent to know before calling; only rate limits and read-only status are left unstated.
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?
Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then output shape, then use case, then cost. Every sentence adds a distinct fact and none is padding.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with the cost disclosure, only secondary details like pagination behavior past the limit cap are missing.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with syntax (comma-separated CPV codes, ISO2 countries, defaults). The description restates the same filter concepts (keywords, CPV codes, buyer countries, minimum days to deadline) without adding format or usage nuance, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search') plus a precisely scoped resource ('open EU/EEA public procurement tenders from TED (Official Journal S)'), and lists the filter dimensions. No siblings exist, but the scope is unambiguous and an agent can tell exactly what domain the tool covers.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use when finding open public procurement tenders in the EU/EEA that match a company's products, keywords, CPV codes or target countries,' which gives clear context and audience. It stops short of any when-not or alternative routing, but with no sibling tools there is nothing to exclude.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
search_tendersSearch open EU public tenders and contract awards on TED by keyword, CPV, country and deadline.
Search EU TED procurement notices by CPV, country, keyword, value, or type.
Who won EU public contracts: winners, values, buyers and CPV from TED award notices. Paid via x402.
Search open and upcoming EU grant calls (Horizon Europe, LIFE, Digital Europe...). Paid via x402.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.