Search live SAM.gov contract opportunities by title/query and return normalized open notices ranked by relevance and deadline urgency. Discovery only; never submits a bid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| lookbackDays | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only discovery tool that never submits bids, which is a key limitation. It also describes the output behavior (normalized, ranked notices). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behaviors, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.
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 concise sentences, with the core action (search SAM.gov) front-loaded. It includes the key constraint (discovery only) without extraneous detail. Every word contributes value, making it highly 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?
While the description covers the tool's purpose and main output, it does not explain the parameters or their semantics, which is critical for an agent to use the tool correctly. There is no guidance on how limit or lookbackDays affect results, what timeoutMs controls, or any prerequisites. Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed for 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions beyond type and constraints. The tool description does not mention any of the four parameters (query, limit, timeoutMs, lookbackDays) or explain their meaning, usage, or impact on results. This is a significant gap; the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 states exactly what the tool does: it searches SAM.gov contract opportunities by title/query, returns normalized open notices ranked by relevance and deadline urgency. It also explicitly says it is discovery only and never submits a bid, which distinguishes it from transaction-like tools. The purpose is clear and specific.
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 notes that the tool is 'Discovery only; never submits a bid,' which implies it should be used for research rather than action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like opportunity_changefeed or web_read, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is somewhat clear but lacks direct guidance on choice among siblings.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct targets—Base reads, web research, opportunity search, and gating—but a few overlapping 'verify' and 'gate' tools could blur boundaries for an agent, especially verify_commercial_truth and verify_deadline_eligibility. Descriptions do differentiate them, so misuse is unlikely with careful prompting.
All names use snake_case and are internally consistent for the base_* cluster, but outside of that, some tool names are nouns while others are verbs (e.g., domain_intelligence, web_read, vendor_verification). This mixed convention makes it less predictable than a strict verb_noun pattern.
21 tools is on the high side of the comfortable range, but the server covers a broad scope: blockchain reads, web/content intelligence, opportunity discovery, commercial verification, and preflight gates. Each tool has a distinct role, though a few feel marginal rather than essential for a leaner setup.
The set covers the main workflows you'd expect: reading blockchain state, researching and verifying web snippets, tracking opportunities, and blocking bad actions with a fee preflight. The notable gap is an explicit execution step—there is no actual sending, bidding, or payment action beyond the x402 preflight. That is a reasonable boundary for a read/preflight tool suite.