Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_tendersA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about the data source (TED, CC BY 4.0), authentication tiers (guest vs. API key), and a disclaimer about no guarantee of award. This goes beyond what annotations provide, but does not cover rate limits or pagination.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single paragraph but packs essential information: purpose, output fields, filters, authentication, and data source. It could be improved by breaking into bullet points for readability, but it is not overly verbose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the absence of an output schema, the description reasonably explains what the tool returns (list of tenders with verdict details) and covers authentication differences. However, it omits pagination details and does not mention ordering or other common search parameters, leaving some gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already includes descriptions for all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description echoes these filters (sector, country, SME-only, min score) without adding new semantics or usage details for each parameter, so it does not significantly enhance understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it searches open EU tenders with a bid/no-bid verdict, listing specific output fields like Worth-It score, reason, competition density etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_winnable_lanes or get_verdict which have different scopes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explains the tool's purpose and notes that guests get expired tenders while API key holders get live ones, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied but not fully directed.

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

• get_verdictA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: authentication failure behavior ('machine-readable key-required or subscription-required answer'), data source (TED with CC BY 4.0), and a disclaimer ('No guarantee of award').

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by prerequisites, data source, and disclaimer. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the final sentence 'No guarantee of award' is somewhat extraneous given the tool's read-only nature.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, failure modes, and data provenance. It lacks details about response format, but since no output schema exists, the description could be more explicit about what is returned. Still, it is largely complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'tender_id'. The description merely echoes 'by tender id' without adding new details about format, validation, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already sufficiently explains the parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Pull one versioned verdict object') and the resource ('by tender id'), listing the fields returned (decision, score, per-channel evidence, price status, reason). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on searching or finding lanes/tenders.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description specifies prerequisites ('Requires an API key with an active TendFeed subscription') and behavior when those are missing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings, though the context implies it is the sole retrieval tool for verdicts.

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

• find_low_competition_lanesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it does not estimate win probability, returns only top-ranked lanes (with limit), provides total count in coverage.lanes_ranked, sources data from TED with CC BY 4.0, and gives no guarantee. No contradiction with annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise—three sentences covering purpose, exclusion, and output details. It is front-loaded with the key function and uses parentheses effectively. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return shape (top-ranked lanes, total count in coverage.lanes_ranked). It covers metrics, data source, and limitations (no guarantee). For a read-only data tool with two parameters, this is complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description enhances meaning by explaining 'limit' as number of top lanes and adding context for 'min_n' with 'honest: small n = noise'. It goes beyond the schema by framing these parameters in the tool's purpose.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Rank' and the resource 'CPV sector lanes', and defines the specific metrics (median bidders, single-bidder share, etc.). It answers the question 'where is competition thinnest right now', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'find_winnable_lanes' which focuses on win probability.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states what the tool does (rank by competition density) and what it does NOT (estimate win probability). It gives context that this is a data/research tool and mentions the limit parameter. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives, though sibling tools are listed and the purpose distinction is clear.

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

• find_winnable_lanesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: deprecation, identical behavior to replacement, measured competition density not win probability, data source and no guarantee. This far exceeds what annotations provide.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded with the deprecation warning. Every sentence adds value: deprecation, reorientation, correction of misconception, data provenance, and disclaimer. No fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple data retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, deprecation, behavioral nuance, and limitations. Return values are trivial (list of lanes), so no output schema needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add extra detail about the parameters themselves, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool is deprecated and points to the replacement find_low_competition_lanes. It explains the actual function (measuring competition density) and corrects the misleading name, distinguishing it from other sibling tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly instructs to use find_low_competition_lanes instead, and clarifies when not to trust the name (win implication). Provides context on data source and constraints, offering clear guidance on usage.

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