Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by dev.hatchloop

lookup_us_contracts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search US federal contract awards by company (recipient) name using the free USASpending.gov public API. Returns the top awards sorted by dollar amount: award ID, recipient name, award amount USD, awarding agency, NAICS code/description, and period of performance. Zero upstream cost, no key required. Data covers 2020-2026 procurement contracts.

EXAMPLE USER QUERIES THAT MATCH THIS TOOL: user: "Does Palantir have US government contracts?" -> call lookup_us_contracts({"company_name": "Palantir Technologies"}) user: "What federal contracts does Booz Allen Hamilton have?" -> call lookup_us_contracts({"company_name": "Booz Allen Hamilton", "max_results": 5}) user: "Find US import supplier data for Lockheed Martin" -> call lookup_us_contracts({"company_name": "Lockheed Martin"}) user: "Which government agencies are customers of SAIC?" -> call lookup_us_contracts({"company_name": "SAIC", "max_results": 10})

WHEN TO USE: Use when you need to know whether a company is a US federal contractor, which government agencies have awarded it contracts, the dollar value and NAICS sector of those contracts, and the period of performance. Useful for supplier due-diligence, vendor qualification, competitive intelligence, and import/trade research. The target demand: "us import data api", "supplier lookup api", "company trade records", "who has government contracts", "federal contractor search". WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for non-US companies (USASpending.gov only covers US federal contracts). Do not use as an exhaustive financial-risk or sanctions screen -- use verify_company_record and screen_sanctions for those. Do not use for state/local government contracts (federal only). COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~1200ms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_resultsNoMaximum number of contract awards to return (sorted by award amount descending). Default: 5, max: 10.
company_nameYesCompany or recipient name to search for in US federal contract awards (e.g. "Lockheed Martin", "Booz Allen Hamilton", "Palantir Technologies").

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: free/no-key access, USASpending.gov source, data coverage 2020-2026, sorting by award amount, and ~1200ms latency. It doesn't disclose possible API errors or edge cases, but that is a minor gap for a simple read-only lookup.

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 description is front-loaded with its core purpose and organized into labeled sections. The example queries are somewhat lengthy but serve as useful few-shot call patterns for an agent. Each section—WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, LATENCY—earns its place, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

For a read-only two-parameter lookup with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the source, input requirements, example calls, returned fields, constraints, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret results 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters, including max_results default/min/max and sorting behavior. The description's examples add practical value by mapping natural-language queries to company_name values, but they don't meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search US federal contract awards by company (recipient) name using the free USASpending.gov public API.' It clearly lists the returned fields and scope, and the WHEN NOT TO USE section explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_company_record and screen_sanctions.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides a dedicated WHEN TO USE section with concrete use cases (supplier due-diligence, vendor qualification, competitive intelligence) and an explicit WHEN NOT TO USE section naming alternatives and exclusions (non-US, state/local, sanctions screening). This gives an agent unambiguous guidance on tool selection.

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

All Agent Broker toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resource+action pairs (find_business vs verify_business, check_booking_link vs import_booking_url, get_status vs get_outcome). The main confusable pairs are send_message vs send_transactional_confirmation and verify_business vs verify_company_record, but their descriptions draw clear boundary lines.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case verb_noun naming (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Minor deviations like self_test and mint_key, plus inconsistent verb choices (lookup_ vs get_ vs find_), prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

At 23 tools, the server falls into the heavy range and bundles several unrelated domains: SMB booking/messaging, trade and sanctions compliance, company verification, and platform operations. Each tool is individually reasonable, but the set feels like multiple servers merged into one.

Completeness3/5

Core SMB workflows are well covered: find/verify/import/book, messaging with conversation handling, and compliance preflights. Notable gaps include no consent-record management even though send_message requires consent_record_id for marketing, no update/delete lifecycle for leads or businesses, and no webhook configuration despite webhooks being referenced.

Resources