Track US federal contract changes: what changed, deltas, competitor award watch, award search.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a distinct use case: competitor_watch centers on one company's events, delta_digest is a scheduled weekly summary, search_awards is ad-hoc live search, and whats_changed_since is incremental cursor-based sync. There is some overlap in filters and award data, but the intended purposes are clear enough to avoid frequent misselection.
All names are readable and lowercase snake_case, so the style is not chaotic. However, only search_awards clearly follows a verb_noun pattern; competitor_watch and delta_digest are noun phrases, and whats_changed_since is a clause, making the naming conventions mixed.
Four tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a federal awards feed: ad-hoc search, competitor monitoring, a weekly digest, and an incremental sync primitive. Each tool earns its place and none feel redundant.
The server covers the core workflows for federal awards: direct lookups, competitor tracking, delta summaries with expiring contracts, and cursor-based change synchronization. A direct single-award detail/ID lookup is not explicitly exposed, but the search and delta tools likely return enough award detail to work around that minor gap.
Given a contractor name, return their recent federal awards (last 180d live) plus any win/lose/modify events the feed has accrued over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contractor | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully carries the burden due to no annotations. It explicitly states the data recency (last 180 days), types of events returned (win/lose/modify), and that events accrue over time. This is good transparency, though it omits potential limitations like pagination or number of results.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and data scope (180 days, events). It does not describe the return structure, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and when to use it.
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 single parameter 'contractor' is described as 'contractor name' in the description, adding context beyond the bare string type in the schema. However, it does not specify expected format (e.g., exact name, partial match), which could leave 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 takes a contractor name and returns recent federal awards and win/lose/modify events. It specifies the time window (last 180 days) and event types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_awards (general search) and delta_digest (diffs).
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 implicitly suggests use for monitoring a specific contractor's activity, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_awards for broader queries). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly delta digest for a filter: new awards, modifications, and contracts EXPIRING in the next N days (recompete opportunities). Best signal for BD teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback days for new/modified (default 7). | |
| naics | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| maxAmount | No | ||
| minAmount | No | ||
| recipient | No | ||
| expiringDays | No | Expiry horizon, 90 or 180 (default 90). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It implies a non-modifying digest but omits response format, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise but could benefit from a brief summary of filtering options or output example.
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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how filters interact, or provide example usage. The tool is underdocumented for effective selection and 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 coverage is only 25% (only 'days' and 'expiringDays' have descriptions). The description adds minimal meaning beyond correlating 'expiringDays' with expiring contracts. Key parameters like 'naics', 'agency', 'keyword', 'maxAmount', 'minAmount', and 'recipient' are left entirely unexplained.
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 provides a weekly delta digest of new awards, modifications, and expiring contracts, with filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_awards' by focusing on time-bound changes and recompete opportunities.
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 it is 'best signal for BD teams' and implies use for weekly monitoring. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Direct live search of US federal awards (USAspending.gov) by NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date range, and $ range. Use for ad-hoc lookups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | Default 50, max 200. | |
| 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?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Direct live search' implying real-time external API access, but fails to mention safety (read-only), rate limits, authentication, or data freshness.
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, front-loaded sentences with no superfluous information, achieving high information density.
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?
Despite 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits return format, pagination details, error handling, and caveats about live external data latency.
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?
Only 11% of parameters have schema descriptions (limit); description lists categories (naics, agency, keyword, date range, $ range) but provides no format, syntax, or examples for the 9 parameters. Falls short of compensating for low schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'search', resource 'US federal awards (USAspending.gov)', and lists search dimensions (NAICS, agency, keyword, etc.). It differentiates itself from sibling tools which focus on competitor watching and change detection.
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?
Says 'Use for ad-hoc lookups', giving a general usage context. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return federal contract awards that are NEW or MODIFIED since a cursor token. Pass the cursor from a prior call to get only changes since then (cursor = your bookmark). Filter by NAICS, awarding agency, recipient/contractor, keyword, and $ range. This is the GovCon delta feed's core lock-in primitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max changes to return (default 100). | |
| naics | No | NAICS code prefixes, e.g. ['5415']. | |
| agency | No | Awarding agency name substring, e.g. 'Defense'. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous response; omit for first call. | |
| keyword | No | ||
| maxAmount | No | ||
| minAmount | No | ||
| recipient | No | Contractor name substring. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the incremental behavior and cursor usage but omits details like rate limits, pagination beyond limit, cursor expiration, or whether the operation is read-only. Transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains cursor usage, then lists filters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether response includes a new cursor for iteration) and does not cover pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. Given the tool's role as a delta feed, this missing context reduces completeness.
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 63%, and the description adds value by grouping filters (NAICS, agency, etc.) and clarifying the cursor's role ('bookmark'). It explains the cursor usage pattern beyond the schema, though it does not mention the limit parameter explicitly.
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 returns 'federal contract awards that are NEW or MODIFIED since a cursor token,' identifying the specific verb ('return'), resource ('federal contract awards'), and unique incremental nature. This explicitly differentiates it from siblings like search_awards (full search) or competitor_watch (different focus).
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 explains the core usage ('Pass the cursor from a prior call to get only changes since then') and lists filter options, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or mention when not to use it, missing full exclusion 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.
competitor_watchdelta_digestsearch_awardswhats_changed_sinceGovernment contract search and federal procurement data: SAM.gov opportunities + USASpending awards.
US federal contracting data: open solicitations, buying agencies, contractors, price history.
Federal contract intelligence: $7T+ awards, SAM.gov opps, pWin verdicts, recompetes, protests.
Daily watch on U.S. federal contract opportunities; deepest coverage on set-asides.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
