EU Tender Award Winners (TED)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a significant behavioral trait: the tool is monetized per call via x402 USDC on Base, which implies a paid call flow and the payment_signature handshake documented in the schema. It omits rate limits, result caps, and the 1825-day window bound, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields before the usage clause and payment note; each sentence carries distinct information. 'B2B lead and competitor data' is a fragment that borders on filler but reinforces the use case.

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, yet the description compensates by enumerating return fields. The paid x402 flow is flagged but the actual cost and how an agent should satisfy payment are left to the schema's payment_signature description, leaving a small gap for a monetized tool.

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 7 parameters; description restates the filter set (keywords, CPV, buyer countries, winner name, look-back days) in use-oriented terms but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond it. 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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (EU/EEA public contract award notices from TED / OJ S), and enumerates the returned fields (winner, winner country, national ID, SME size, awarded value/currency, decision date, buyer, CPV, links). An agent knows exactly what domain and payload to expect without a sibling to disambiguate against.

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 states when to use it: 'when you need to know who wins EU public contracts in a market (competitors, partners or sales leads), by keyword, CPV code, country or winner name.' It gives positive selection criteria and use-case framing, but no alternatives or exclusions (there are no siblings, so this is a minor gap).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.