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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it searches and lists parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or whether results are real-time or cached. This is minimal disclosure for a web API tool.
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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.
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 lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers parameters but lacks details on expected return values (e.g., list of awards with summary fields), source reliability, or edge cases. It is minimally viable but could be more 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?
The input schema has only type and title for each parameter, with no descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful explanations for all four parameters (e.g., 'recipient_name: Award recipient name'). This significantly improves clarity beyond the schema, despite the 0% coverage metric being misleading.
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 states it searches USASpending.gov for awards (contracts+grants). The verb 'Search' and resource 'awards' are specific and unambiguous. No sibling tool covers federal spending, so it is well-distinguished.
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 use when looking for federal grants or contracts, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus not use this tool, or any alternatives. With siblings mainly about companies and filings, usage context is reasonable though not explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct public records source (company, SEC, UCC, spending, NPI, courts, licenses) with clear differentiation between search and retrieval operations. Minimal overlap and no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'mcp_verb_noun' pattern using get, lookup, search, and verify. No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
10 tools cover a broad range of public records domains without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by targeting a specific source or operation.
The set covers many common public records, but mcp_get_ucc_filings is a roadmap stub returning not_implemented, which is a significant functional gap. Missing sources like property or criminal records are expected, but the non-functional tool hurts completeness.