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.
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.