Search USASpending.gov for awards (contracts + grants).
Args:
recipient_name: Award recipient name.
agency: Awarding agency name (e.g. 'Department of Defense').
year: Fiscal year (e.g. 2024).
limit: Max results (1-100, default 25).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| recipient_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses only the data source and award types. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, result ordering, or error behavior for a network search against a public API.
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?
Purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by a tight Args list. No redundant filler, though the Args block mostly mirrors schema property names rather than adding much beyond the parentheticals.
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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is adequate on inputs but silent on the return shape, pagination, and total-count behavior an agent would need to interpret results. Minimum viable rather than complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all four parameters, clarifies that year is a fiscal year, supplies example values for agency and year, and adds a 1-100 range for limit that the schema omits. Only recipient_name lacks added detail.
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?
States a specific verb (Search) plus resource (USASpending.gov awards) and narrows scope to contracts + grants. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like mcp_get_company_details or mcp_search_sec_filings by its federal-spending domain, though it never names or contrasts a sibling.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing advice relative to the many sibling search tools. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for federal awards purely from the resource name.
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.