find_a_tender_noticeFull detail for one Find a Tender Service (high-value UK) notice by its OCID (e.g. "ocds-h6vhtk-06d27d", from find_a_tender_recent results). Returns title, buyer, description, CPV classification, value, deadlines, and documents. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ocid | Yes | The notice OCID, e.g. "ocds-h6vhtk-06d27d". Get these from find_a_tender_recent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool is 'Keyless' and specifies the returned fields (title, buyer, etc.), providing useful behavioral context without contradicting 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is informative and earns its place.
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?
Given only one parameter, no output schema, and the complexity of retrieving a tender detail, the description sufficiently lists the main output fields. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple lookup it is adequate.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the ocid parameter well, including an example. The description repeats the source of OCIDs but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 states it provides full details for a single Find a Tender Service notice by OCID, listing specific returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tool find_a_tender_recent by referencing it as the source for OCIDs.
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 indicates the OCID comes from find_a_tender_recent results, implying this tool is used after listing recent tenders. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly the same router as ask_pipeworx. Company-data tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim) and the Polymarket family also overlap heavily, making selection error-prone despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names are consistently lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (search_notices, get_notice, find_a_tender_recent, validate_claim). Even longer names like polymarket_edge_tracker and ask_pipeworx_grounded follow a predictable style with no camelCase or mixed conventions.
36 tools is already excessive for a focused server, and the 'Uk Contracts' name covers only five of them (search_notices, recent_notices, get_notice, find_a_tender_recent, find_a_tender_notice). The remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/AI-marketing utilities, so the count badly mismatches the apparent scope.
For UK public procurement, the five relevant tools provide search, recent listing, and full-detail retrieval for both Contracts Finder and Find a Tender Service, covering the core workflows well. Minor gaps include no tender-specific alert/subscription support and no server-side keyword search for the high-value FTS feed.