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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: competitor_watch focuses on a specific contractor's history, delta_digest provides weekly summaries, search_awards enables ad-hoc live searches, and whats_changed_since handles incremental updates. No overlap or ambiguity.
Names follow a mostly consistent pattern of descriptive phrases with underscores (e.g., competitor_watch, search_awards). 'whats_changed_since' is slightly less conventional but still readable. Overall, the naming is clear and predictable.
With 4 tools covering search, competitor tracking, weekly digest, and incremental updates, the count is well-scoped for a federal contract feed. Each tool serves a distinct need without unnecessary redundancy.
The set covers key workflows: ad-hoc search, targeted contractor watching, periodic summaries, and change tracking. Minor gaps like direct access to award details or agency/NAICS browsing are mitigated by the search tool's capabilities.