USASpending.gov

spending_by_transaction

Read-only

Search at the transaction (modification) level.

Unlike search_awards which returns one row per award, this returns one
row per transaction (initial action plus every modification). Useful for
tracking obligation events over time, ceiling adjustments, deobligations,
and admin mods.

recipient_uei is matched through the API's recipient text search (which
covers name, UEI, and DUNS), so pass the plain 12-character UEI.

Returns standard transaction fields: Action Date, Mod, Award ID,
Action Type, Awarding Agency, Recipient Name.

program_numbers filters assistance awards by assistance listing (CFDA)
number, e.g. ['93.778'] for Medicaid; use it with award_type='grants',
'loans', 'direct_payments', or 'other'. autocomplete_cfda() finds numbers
by program name.

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": "spending_by_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`page`	No
`sort`	No	Action Date
`limit`	No
`order`	No	desc
`keywords`	No
`psc_codes`	No
`award_type`	No	contracts
`naics_codes`	No
`recipient_uei`	No
`funding_agency`	No
`awarding_agency`	No
`program_numbers`	No
`time_period_end`	No
`award_amount_max`	No
`award_amount_min`	No
`time_period_start`	No
`set_aside_type_codes`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), so the description is free to add real operational context. It does: the recipient_uei lookup is a text search over name/UEI/DUNS, so the plain 12-character UEI must be passed — a non-obvious gotcha that would otherwise cause silent mis-queries. It does not mention pagination defaults or limits, which is the only notable behavioral omission.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the core distinction, then use cases, then parameter gotchas, in short scannable paragraphs. Every sentence carries information; nothing restates the name or title.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a wide, high-traffic spending endpoint the description covers the critical sibling distinction and the two trickiest parameters, and the output schema handles return shape (the listed fields are a bonus). But with 17 mostly undocumented filters, an agent still cannot tell what psc_codes, naics_codes, time_period_*, or award_amount_* expect or how they interact.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 17 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does not. It explains recipient_uei's matching behavior and program_numbers' semantics plus its award_type dependency, but leaves psc_codes, naics_codes, funding_agency, awarding_agency, time_period_start/end, award_amount_min/max, set_aside_type_codes, keywords, and the sort/page/limit controls completely undocumented.

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 at the transaction (modification) level") and immediately contrasts with the sibling search_awards by cardinality (one row per transaction vs. one row per award). An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (search_awards) and the condition that selects each, and lists concrete use cases (obligation events, ceiling adjustments, deobligations, admin mods). It also constrains program_numbers to specific award_type values and points to autocomplete_cfda() for resolving program names, though it never states an explicit "do not use when" case.

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

All USASpending.gov 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.