Get metadata about the GovBid Global API including version, data source, license information, and usage guidelines. Call this first to understand the service before making other tool calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only metadata operation and discloses the type of content returned. It does not detail response format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool these gaps are minor.
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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows immediately. Every sentence contributes actionable information.
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 parameterless API metadata endpoint, the description fully covers when to call it, what it returns, and why. The sibling tools are different enough that no additional disambiguation is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is required. The description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GovBid Global API metadata'), and lists concrete fields it returns: version, data source, license, usage guidelines. The tool is clearly distinguished from siblings, which handle opportunity searches and details.
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?
Explicitly instructs the agent to call this first before using other tools, which is strong timing/sequence guidance. This makes the intended role of the tool unambiguous even without naming sibling alternatives.
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 role—service metadata, agent registration, search, and direct-link lookup—but search_opportunities already returns source URLs, so get_opportunity_detail could initially seem redundant until its notice-ID-specific purpose is understood.
All four tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_api_info, get_opportunity_detail, register_agent, and search_opportunities. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Four tools is well-scoped for this narrow SAM.gov contract-opportunity wrapper: metadata, agent registration, search, and detail-link retrieval. Each tool earns its place in the workflow without redundancy.
The core workflow is covered: register, search, and redirect to SAM.gov details. The only minor gap is that search returns 'recent' notices without obvious filtering or pagination controls, and get_opportunity_detail provides a URL rather than full structured opportunity data.