TenderFit

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the call is free and returns current data, implying a harmless read operation. However, it omits any mention of output format, potential variability, or call limits, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and data fields, with zero filler. It earns the maximum score for efficiency.

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?

For a simple no-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential return fields and the free-call nature. It lacks any mention of the output schema or sibling distinction, but these are minor for successfully invoking the 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly focuses on return values rather than parameters, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource (x402 price, network, token, receiving address), making the tool's purpose evident. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools tenderfit_pulse and tenderfit_qualify, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The only usage signal is 'Free to call,' which addresses cost but not decision-making about which tool to select in a given context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait—the call costs 1 USDC on Base mainnet—and it characterizes the output as the 'strongest credible live' fit. However, it does not explain how the tool behaves with company_url versus company_profile, what side effects occur beyond the payment, or why the description says 'single' while the schema exposes a limit parameter with a default of 5.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds the crucial cost constraint. Every clause earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a paid tool with 6 parameters, an anyOf input requirement, nested objects, and two sibling tools, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the anyOf requirement, the role of the tuning parameters, when to pick this tool over siblings, or how the 'single strongest' result relates to limit. The output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but the definition is still inadequate for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, with days, limit, company_name, and corpus_limit left undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate for this gap: it adds no meaning for any parameter and does not clarify whether limit applies to output, candidates, or something else. The 'single strongest' wording may even conflict with the existence of a limit parameter.

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 names a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('the single strongest credible live UK tender fit'), with geography and recency qualifiers. It is clear enough to distinguish this from the sibling tools by its focus on finding a tender rather than payment details or qualification, but it never explicitly contrasts those siblings. The phrase 'single strongest' also sits awkwardly with the schema's limit parameter, which prevents a top score.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use tenderfit_pulse versus tenderfit_payment_details or tenderfit_qualify, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided. The only practical usage signal is the cost note, which implies the tool should be used deliberately, but it does not say when it is the right tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the per-call cost and blockchain network, which is important for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what inputs trigger the cost, what ranking methodology is used, or any failure conditions.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and the most critical operational detail (cost) with no filler. The description is appropriately front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description covers the main purpose and cost, and an output schema exists, so the agent may not need return-value details. However, it omits guidance on choosing between company_url and company_profile, the meaning of the less obvious fields, and how this tool relates to tenderfit_payment_details or tenderfit_pulse. For a paid tool with six parameters, this is adequate but notcomplete.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 50%, and parameters like days, limit, and corpus_limit are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the agent receives no help understanding how to set them or what corpus_limit means.

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 ('Find and rank') and a clear resource ('live UK public procurement opportunities'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its siblings, such as tenderfit_payment_details or tenderfit_pulse, so it misses the strongest form of differentiation.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to discover and rank live UK tender opportunities, which is clear context. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like tenderfit_pulse, so the agent must infer routing from tool names.

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