US Brand Intelligence

US Brand Federal Award Snapshot

us-brand-federal-award-snapshot

Read-only

Given one exact USAspending recipient ID and a bounded UTC date window, return a deterministic snapshot of federal contract transactions for that recipient. Built for company and government-intelligence agents; no buyer URL, API key, browser, or LLM. — $0.05/call, x402 (USDC on base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`endDate`	Yes	Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD end date, no later than the UTC run date.
`requestId`	No	Optional bounded correlation label; it is not replay state.
`startDate`	Yes	Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD start date; runtime validation enforces the calendar and 2007-10-01 lower bound.
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of exact-attributed transactions in the one snapshot row.
`recipientId`	Yes	USAspending lowercase child recipient ID ending in -C.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'deterministic snapshot' indicates consistent outputs, and 'no buyer URL, API key, browser, or LLM' clarifies it is a direct, low-dependency API. Pricing and payment method ($0.05/call, x402 USDC on base) provide operational transparency beyond structured annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core function, the second embeds target audience, dependency constraints, and cost. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With strong annotations, 100% schema coverage, and a clear statement of inputs and output content (federal contract transactions), the description provides all essential context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the tool's straightforward snapshot nature, and the description mentions the key operational constraints (cost, no API key).

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed per-parameter descriptions including regex patterns, defaults, and semantic meaning (e.g., 'child recipient ID ending in -C'). The description summarizes the two key inputs ('one exact USAspending recipient ID and a bounded UTC date window') but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'return a deterministic snapshot of federal contract transactions for that recipient.' It also defines exact input constraints (one USAspending recipient ID, bounded UTC date window), which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling analytics tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for federal contract transaction retrieval and says 'built for company and government-intelligence agents,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool names or conditions are provided, leaving guidance implicit.

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

All US Brand Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., us-brand-signal-metrics-aggregator, us-brand-signal-cross-tabulator, and us-brand-signal-brand-summary all produce counts or summaries of the same type of data. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between analyzers, summarizers, and aggregators are unclear enough that an agent may struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent 'us-brand-' prefix with descriptive nouns separated by hyphens (e.g., us-brand-signal-batch-splitter, us-brand-evidence-chronology-builder). The exception is 'pricing_info', which uses an underscore and lacks the prefix, creating a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

At 21 tools, the set is on the heavier side but still manageable for a complex domain like brand intelligence. Many tools are variations on deterministic signal processing, which could be streamlined, but the count itself is not extreme.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a broad pipeline for processing buyer-supplied signals and evidence, including splitting, summarizing, routing, and building payloads. However, it lacks any tools for ingesting or fetching data from external sources (except one federal award snapshot), and there is no end-to-end controller that orchestrates the workflow. This leaves notable gaps for a complete 'brand intelligence' lifecycle.

Resources

Need Help?