FedWatch — Federal Funding & Lien Watcher

contracts_search_awards

Search federal contract AWARDS already made (USASpending, served from FedWatch's relay-ingested copy — a fleet machine syncs USASpending daily because USASpending blocks direct Worker fetches): who won, how much, which agency, period of performance. Filter by keyword, NAICS, and/or agency; sort by amount (default) or most recent. Every response states its data-as-of and the true total_matches under the filters. The incumbency/recompete evidence layer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "contracts_search_awards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	'amount' (default, largest first) or 'recent' (newest obligation first)
`limit`	No	Max results (default 25)
`naics`	No	NAICS codes
`agency`	No	Agency name fragment to require, e.g. 'Veterans Affairs'
`keyword`	No	Keyword, e.g. a service or incumbent name
`days_back`	No	Award window in days (default 365)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the relay-ingested data source, daily sync cadence, and that every response includes data-as-of and true total_matches. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or response shape beyond those metadata guarantees, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is strongly front-loaded with the core purpose and return data. The parenthetical about FedWatch's relay-ingested copy and fleet sync is longer than strictly necessary for tool selection, though it does explain freshness, so it is useful but not maximally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important context: source, freshness, filters, sort defaults, and response metadata. It could say more about pagination or exact return fields, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including defaults and allowed sort values. The description reinforces filtering and sorting but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Search federal contract AWARDS already made," and clarifies the result content (who won, amount, agency, period). The phrase "already made" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling contracts_search_opportunities tool, which covers open opportunities rather than awarded contracts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context: filter by keyword, NAICS, and/or agency; sort by amount or recency; framed as "the incumbency/recompete evidence layer." It does not explicitly say when to prefer contracts_search_opportunities, so it lacks full alternative-routing guidance, but the intended scenario is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FedWatch — Federal Funding & Lien Watcher tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?