Search US federal contract/grant awards by keyword — award ID, recipient, amount, awarding agency. Source: USAspending.gov API (no key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-25, default 5) | |
| keyword | Yes | Keyword to search awards (e.g. cybersecurity, road construction) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, leaving the description responsible for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source and that no API key is needed, but omits important behavioral traits such as result format, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'Search'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core function, searchable fields, source, and auth requirement without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers the basics but lacks an explicit statement of return values or any behavioral caveats. Since there is no output schema, the description should have mentioned what results are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the 'keyword' parameter by specifying it can search across award ID, recipient, amount, and awarding agency, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'keyword to search awards'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses the verb 'Search' with a specific resource ('US federal contract/grant awards') and lists relevant search fields (award ID, recipient, amount, awarding agency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'usaspending_budget' by focusing on awards rather than budget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for keyword-based award searches, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The distinction from usaspending_budget is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes: fda_drug_labels vs health_drug_search, fda_recalls vs health_recalls, fx_official_rates vs treasury_fx_rates, treasury_debt vs us_debt_current, and get_gdp vs get_bea_gdp. These near-duplicates create real ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Names mix verb-led styles (get_, search_, compare_, screen_) with domain-led styles (fx_, treasury_, uk_, health_, eurostat_, datausa_). Within the same domain, similar actions use different patterns (get_gdp vs eurostat_gdp vs imf_indicator), making the set feel inconsistent and hard to predict.
75 tools is extreme for any MCP server, especially when many tools are redundant or cover unrelated domains (weather, earthquakes, scholarly search, air quality) outside the stated SEC/economics/demographics/FX focus. This overwhelms agents and burdens context windows.
Core domains like SEC financials, major economic indicators, basic demographics, and current FX rates are well covered. However, gaps remain: no historical FX rates, no stock price/quote tool, limited demographic breakdowns, and no ability to fetch full SEC filing text. Some operations end in dead ends.