Direct live search of US federal awards (USAspending.gov) by NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date and $ range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| maxAmount | No | ||
| minAmount | No | ||
| recipient | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'direct live search,' indicating real-time data, but omits details about read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or pagination behavior. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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 conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It could be slightly more structured with a bullet list of filters, but it is efficient and clear.
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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, pagination, sorting, or result limits. The search tool's return structure is entirely unspecified, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It lists parameter categories (NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date range, dollar range) which cover the 9 parameters at a high level. However, it does not explain formats, constraints, or how parameters interact, leaving some ambiguity.
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 the tool performs a live search of US federal awards using various criteria like NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date, and dollar range. It identifies the datasource (USAspending.gov) and the scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like contractor_signals or rising_contractors.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for searching awards, but lacks contextual cues about prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when to choose another tool.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one retrieves a detailed signal profile for a specific contractor, one provides a ranked feed of rising contractors, and one searches federal awards. No overlap or ambiguity.
Tool names follow a general pattern of lowercase snake_case, but the stylistic role varies: 'contractor_signals' is a noun phrase, 'rising_contractors' is adjective-noun, and 'search_awards' is verb-noun. This inconsistency, while minor, breaks a strict verb_noun pattern.
Three tools is appropriate for the focused domain of government contractor signals and award data. The count is minimal but covers the key operations: individual signal, aggregated feed, and search. Could arguably benefit from one or two additional tools (e.g., detailed award view), but not excessive.
The tools cover the primary use cases: retrieving an individual signal profile, accessing a ranked feed, and searching awards. However, there is no tool to retrieve detailed information on a specific award or to filter signals by criteria beyond what is embedded in the tools. This is a minor gap but does not severely hinder functionality.