OPR's CotC does aim at presenting CT as the biblical covenant motif unfolded. CotC's drawbacks include OPR's idiosyncratic definition of a covenant ("a bond in blood sovereignly administered") which then precludes being able to define the CoW in those terms; and actually I think he ends up not being able to affirm the Edenic God-to-man relationship as covenant. I say the definition is "idiosyncratic" because there's no attempt to fit it with anything truly historic in the CT tradition. It arises (using Gen.15) from the ANE treaty-motif that Mendenhall tied (quite reasonably, I should add) to the biblical concept of covenant. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_covenant)
I think Brown & Keele, Sacred Bond, is a good short survey. Drawbacks might include (to those allergic to any whiff of MGKline) a modern variation of the typological nature of the Mosaic covenant.
One can argue that CT is the original BT. And with that observation, studying Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, is not a bad place to start. What you may lose in the absence of modern insight is more than made up for by biblical exposition.
If you have not already read Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, while it is not focused on CT per se, Vos is a covenant theologian. Vos' aim was to address what was then (early 20th C) a "new field" sprung up among the critical scholars, who were in fact curious about what they believed was evidence of numerous individual "theologies" either patent in the different authors, or discernible beneath the redactor's cobbled-together storyline. Vos responded to this assertion of individuality, that went beyond personality and style, by better-defining variation within Scripture as "organic development." In Vos' view, then, the God behind revelation and his plan does not change, although men do change; and among men covenant is the element that ties the generations together.
Creation and Covenant by William Dumbrell is pretty good for the most part. However, be careful. He really is guilty of 'covenant overload.' While calling himself Reformed he interprets 'justification' in the new perspective way.