Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Broker

by io.github.basilalshukaili

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra value is met by the description's additions: data source (USASpending.gov), coverage years (2020-2026), zero cost/no key, latency, and output fields. It does not contradict the annotations. Minor gap: no statement about exact-match vs fuzzy matching or empty-result behavior.

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 longer than average but well structured with clear sections (purpose, examples, when to use, when not, cost, latency). Main purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists between 'Zero upstream cost, no key required' and the COST section.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low parameter count and lack of an output schema, the description compensates well by specifying the returned award fields, data source, date range, sort order, and constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though details about no-result responses or name-matching behavior are absent.

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% and both parameters are already clearly documented in the input schema. The description reinforces company_name via examples and max_results via the sort order, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search US federal contract awards by company name') and lists the exact returned fields (award ID, recipient, amount, agency, NAICS, period). It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like verify_company_record and screen_sanctions by stating what it covers and what it does not.

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 tool has an explicit WHEN TO USE section with concrete scenarios and a WHEN NOT TO USE section that names alternative tools (verify_company_record, screen_sanctions) and exclusions (non-US, state/local, financial-risk screening). This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to select between siblings.

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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions and explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance. Potential overlaps like send_message vs. send_transactional_confirmation are well-differentiated by idempotency and use case, and compliance tools (check_compliance, screen_sanctions, map_trade_restriction) operate on different scopes without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Even less standard verbs like lookup, map, and mint follow the same structural convention, and there are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent naming patterns.

Tool Count4/5

With 23 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the server's purpose—covering communication, scheduling, compliance, trade screening, and operational utilities—justifies the count. Each tool addresses a distinct capability area, and the set is not bloated with redundant or trivial functions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the broker's domain: business discovery, booking (check, import, schedule), communication (send, receive, read), compliance (pre-flight checks, sanctions, trade restrictions, company verification), and operational support (quota, health, cost preview, key minting, async status/outcome). There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.

Resources