Assets for sale in Moldova from insolvency, enforcement, bank collateral and public auctions
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct need: detail-by-id (get_listing), filtered catalog search (search_listings), date-window auctions (upcoming_auctions), aggregate stats (market_overview), and subscription links (alert_subscription_link). The only mild overlap is search_listings vs upcoming_auctions, since the latter is effectively a date-bounded, date-sorted search, but the descriptions make the intended use cases ('what's on next week in Chisinau' vs free-text catalog search) clear enough.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_listing, search_listings) while three are noun phrases (market_overview, upcoming_auctions, alert_subscription_link), and listing is singular in one tool but plural in the other. The names are all readable and snake_case, but the convention is mixed rather than predictable.
Five tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a read-only listings catalog, with no obviously redundant entries. It is on the lean side — browsing versus searching versus auction-window listing could arguably be consolidated or expanded — but each tool has a clear job.
Core read paths (search, detail, upcoming auctions, stats, subscription) are covered, but there are notable gaps: search_listings cannot filter by seller even though alert_subscription_link supports seller subscriptions, and there is no way to list a given seller's lots or enumerate valid category/procedure/region filter values. No pagination or sort controls are exposed either.
Intoarce linkul catre formularul de alerte LICHIDARE.MD, plus canalul Telegram. Doua feluri: (1) dupa o categorie, o procedura si o regiune: catalogul filtrat cu formularul deschis si criteriile deja selectate; (2) dupa un VANZATOR anume (executor, administrator autorizat, banca, SFS, primarie), parametrul seller cu numele lui: formularul de abonare la anunturile acestui vanzator, cu vanzatorul deja completat. Vanzatorul se recunoaste exact dupa nume (nu dupa fragment); daca numele nu e gasit, pagina spune asta. Abonarea pe vanzator primeste doar loturile in care el este vanzatorul, nu cele in care e doar mentionat (de exemplu creditor). Utilizatorul introduce doar adresa de e-mail, bifeaza acordul si confirma abonarea din e-mail. Instrumentul nu trimite si nu stocheaza nicio adresa de e-mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Raion sau municipiu, ex. 'Chisinau', 'Balti', 'Nisporeni', 'Stefan Voda' | |
| seller | No | Numele vanzatorului, asa cum apare pe anunt (ex. Prutean Viorica, MAIB S.A., Serviciul Fiscal de Stat). Cand e dat, linkul duce la abonarea pe acest vanzator; categoria, procedura si regiunea nu se aplica. | |
| category | No | imobile (inclusiv terenuri), transport, echipament (industrial/agricol) sau alte bunuri | |
| procedure | No | Procedura de vanzare: insolvabilitate, executare_silita, gaj_bancar, sfs (bunuri confiscate), apl (primarii), alta |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: seller matching is exact by name (not fragment) with a defined fallback when not found, seller subscriptions only include lots where that party is the seller (not merely mentioned as creditor), and the user completes the subscription by email while the tool neither sends nor stores any address. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.
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?
It is front-loaded with the core outcome and organized around the two modes, with each sentence carrying substance. It is a dense single block and slightly repetitive on the email/privacy point, which prevents a 5.
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 4-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (a link plus Telegram channel) and the key edge cases. It does not describe the shape of the returned value (e.g., fields), a minor gap for an otherwise simple, well-covered 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including both enums) are already documented. The description restates the seller precedence and exact-match rule that the schema also contains, adding little beyond structured data, so the 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?
The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it returns the link to the LICHIDARE.MD alert form plus the Telegram channel. It then enumerates the two modes (filtered catalog vs. seller-specific), so an agent can immediately tell this apart from search_listings or get_listing.
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 clearly explains the two usage modes and the precedence rule that when 'seller' is supplied the category/procedure/region parameters do not apply. It lacks explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over the sibling listing tools (e.g., 'use this after searching to subscribe'), which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Intoarce detaliile unui anunt LICHIDARE.MD dupa id: descriere, lista loturilor cu preturi de pornire, data licitatiei, vanzatorul (rolul si denumirea) si sursa oficiala (Monitorul Oficial, Registrul Insolvabilitatii etc.). Telefoanele si e-mailurile nu sunt incluse: datele de contact si conditiile de participare sunt in anuntul oficial (source_url). Cererea de participare se depune direct la vanzator; LICHIDARE.MD nu o transmite. applications_closed=true inseamna ca termenul de depunere a expirat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id-ul anuntului, ex. 8927 din https://lichidare.md/listing.php?id=8927 | |
| lang | No | Limba textelor din anunt (ro sau ru), daca exista traducere | ro |
| max_lots | No | Cate loturi sa fie listate (unele anunturi au sute de loturi) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld annotations: it discloses what is deliberately excluded (phones, e-mails), redirects the agent to source_url for contact and participation terms, clarifies that applications go directly to the seller and not through LICHIDARE.MD, and defines the applications_closed=true flag. This is exactly the extra behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, then the exclusion note and the applications_closed definition. Dense but every clause carries information; only slight trimming would help.
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, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does, listing the returned fields and the important omission of contact data. Combined with the flag semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.
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 each parameter (id, lang, max_lots) is already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description mentions lots and language only as return content, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (returns the details of) and resource (a LICHIDARE.MD listing by id), then enumerates exactly what is returned: description, lots with starting prices, auction date, seller role/name, official source. This is distinguishable at a glance from search_listings and upcoming_auctions.
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 gives rich context about what the listing contains and how participation works, but never states explicitly when to use this tool versus search_listings or the other siblings. Usage is implied (fetch one known listing by id) rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Statistica agregata a catalogului LICHIDARE.MD: anunturi active, licitatii viitoare, repartizarea pe categorii, proceduri si tipuri de vanzatori. Nu contine date despre persoane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine scope/privacy disclosure ('Nu contine date despre persoane') beyond the annotations, but says nothing about data freshness or whether the figures are a snapshot, which would matter for a statistics endpoint.
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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the enumeration of returned dimensions is substantive rather than padding. It is slightly list-heavy but every item earned its place by describing what the statistics cover.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by enumerating the statistic dimensions (active listings, upcoming auctions, distributions). Only the absence of guidance on freshness and on sibling selection keeps it from being fully complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain arguments, and it correctly spends no space on parameter semantics.
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 verb+resource ('Statistica agregata a catalogului LICHIDARE.MD') and enumerates the concrete contents: active listings, upcoming auctions, and distributions across categories, procedures, and seller types. An agent can tell this is an aggregate-statistics tool rather than an item lookup. However, it never names a sibling (e.g. search_listings or upcoming_auctions) to sharpen the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: framing it as 'statistica agregata' signals this is for market-level overviews instead of retrieving individual listings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not sentence and no reference to the sibling tools that would serve the request for specific items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Cauta in catalogul LICHIDARE.MD anunturi active de vanzare a bunurilor din insolvabilitate, executare silita, gaj bancar, SFS si primarii din Republica Moldova. Filtreaza dupa text, categorie, procedura, regiune, interval de pret si existenta licitatiei. Intoarce o lista scurta cu id, titlu, pret de pornire, localitate, data licitatiei si link; detaliile se obtin cu get_listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Text liber, ex. 'tractor', 'apartament', 'teren agricol', numele vanzatorului | |
| lang | No | Limba textelor din anunt (ro sau ru), daca exista traducere | ro |
| page | No | Pagina rezultatelor | |
| sort | No | newest | |
| limit | No | ||
| region | No | Raion sau municipiu, ex. 'Chisinau', 'Balti', 'Nisporeni', 'Stefan Voda' | |
| category | No | imobile (inclusiv terenuri), transport, echipament (industrial/agricol) sau alte bunuri | |
| price_max | No | Pret maxim de pornire | |
| price_min | No | Pret minim de pornire | |
| procedure | No | Procedura de vanzare: insolvabilitate, executare_silita, gaj_bancar, sfs (bunuri confiscate), apl (primarii), alta | |
| auction_only | No | Doar anunturi vandute prin licitatie |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations cannot: the returned fields (id, titlu, pret de pornire, localitate, data licitatiei, link), which is important since there is no output schema, and the truncated-result behavior ('o lista scurta').
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?
Three dense sentences, no filler, with the catalog scope and the return shape front-loaded before the get_listing hand-off. Slightly heavy in enumeration, but every clause carries 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?
With 11 optional parameters, no output schema and no required fields, the description fills the two real gaps: what the result set looks like and how to get full details. Minor omissions remain (pagination/limit behavior, sort semantics), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is 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 82%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including enum meanings (procedure, category) and examples (region, q). The description only restates the filter dimensions (text, categorie, procedura, regiune, interval de pret, licitatie) without adding format or default semantics, so the baseline of 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 (Cauta) and resource (anunturi active de vanzare) plus the exact catalog (LICHIDARE.MD) and the source domains (insolvabilitate, executare silita, gaj bancar, SFS, primarii). It also names the sibling get_listing as the follow-up for details, so an agent can separate search from retrieval without opening either schema.
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 routes the agent: this tool returns a short list, and 'detaliile se obtin cu get_listing' tells the agent when to switch to the sibling. It gives no exclusion conditions or guidance against using other siblings like upcoming_auctions or market_overview, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lista licitatiilor programate in urmatoarele N zile (implicit 14), ordonate dupa data, cu filtre optionale pe categorie, procedura si regiune. Pentru intrebari de tipul 'ce licitatii sunt saptamana viitoare in Chisinau'. Licitatiile la care termenul de depunere a cererilor a expirat raman in lista, marcate DEPUNEREA CERERILOR INCHISA (applications_closed=true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Orizontul in zile de la data de azi (ora Moldovei) | |
| limit | No | ||
| region | No | Raion sau municipiu, ex. 'Chisinau', 'Balti', 'Nisporeni', 'Stefan Voda' | |
| category | No | imobile (inclusiv terenuri), transport, echipament (industrial/agricol) sau alte bunuri | |
| procedure | No | Procedura de vanzare: insolvabilitate, executare_silita, gaj_bancar, sfs (bunuri confiscate), apl (primarii), alta |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: auctions whose submission deadline has passed stay in the list flagged with applications_closed=true. That is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the default horizon and ordering are front-loaded, and the example question and edge-case note follow logically. Slightly listy on the filter fields but every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description carries return-shape duty, and it does mention ordering and the applications_closed flag. It omits only the limit/pagination behavior, which is a minor gap for a filtered list tool with safe annotations.
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 80%, so the schema already documents days, region, category and procedure. The description restates the filter dimensions and adds the ordering semantics ('ordonate dupa data'), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and limit remains undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource (list scheduled auctions in the next N days, default 14, ordered by date) plus the filterable dimensions. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as search_listings to sharpen the boundary.
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?
Gives a concrete triggering question ('ce licitatii sunt saptamana viitoare in Chisinau'), which tells the agent exactly when this tool fits. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
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.
alert_subscription_link1 field changedInput schema / properties / sellerAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Numele vanzatorului, asa cum apare pe anunt (ex. Prutean Viorica, MAIB S.A., Serviciul Fiscal de Stat). Cand e dat, linkul duce la abonarea pe acest vanzator; categoria, procedura si regiunea nu se aplica.",
+ "maxLength": 120,
+ "minLength": 3,
+ "type": "string"
+}alert_subscription_linkget_listingmarket_overviewsearch_listingsupcoming_auctionsRussian property auctions: bankruptcy, state, seized, bank and leasing lots. Read-only, in Russian.
Romanian classified ads and business directory. Search 30K+ businesses, ads, exchange rates.
Romanian company data, e-Factura and legislation: CUI lookup, courts, risk, invoices, laws
Prozorro.Sale MCP — Ukraine's state and municipal asset sales and leases (keyless).
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
