Skip to main content
Glama

Openfec Search Coordinated Expenditures

openfec_search_coordinated_expenditures
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search coordinated party expenditures (Schedule F) — spending a party committee makes on behalf of a candidate it supports, in coordination with that campaign. Distinct from independent expenditures (openfec_search_expenditures), which cannot be coordinated with the candidate, and from direct contributions: coordinated expenditures carry their own statutory limits and can run into tens of millions per party in a presidential cycle. Scope with a spending committee_id, a benefiting candidate_id, or a cycle; unscoped queries span all years.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-indexed). Read pagination.pages in the response to see how many pages exist.
sortNoSort field. A "-" prefix sorts descending: use "-expenditure_amount" for the largest coordinated spending first, since the ascending form leads with the most negative rows (corrections and voided entries). OpenFEC sorts by "-expenditure_date" when omitted.
cycleNoTwo-year election cycle (e.g., 2024). Even years only. Omitting it searches every cycle on record.
max_dateNoLatest expenditure date (YYYY-MM-DD).
min_dateNoEarliest expenditure date (YYYY-MM-DD).
per_pageNoResults per page.
max_amountNoMaximum expenditure amount in dollars.
min_amountNoMinimum expenditure amount in dollars.
payee_nameNoFull-text payee name search (the vendor the party paid).
candidate_idNoBenefiting candidate ID (e.g., P00003392). Get IDs from openfec_search_candidates results.
committee_idNoSpending party committee ID (e.g., C00003418). Get IDs from openfec_search_committees results — party committees carry committee_type X or Y.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
noticeNoGuidance when no coordinated expenditures matched — echoes filters and suggests how to broaden.
resultsNoCoordinated expenditure result set; one record per itemized transaction.
committeeNoThe committee every row in this response belongs to, carried once instead of repeated in each row. Present only when the query was scoped to a single committee_id; otherwise each row keeps its own committee object.
paginationNoPage-based pagination metadata.
totalCountNoTotal matching coordinated expenditures before pagination.
search_criteriaNoEcho of the search filters this call applied, as the server parsed them, minus paging arguments. Always present — compare it against what you sent to confirm every filter was honoured.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (statutory limits, scale) but no extra behavioral detail like pagination or rate limits. Since the bar is lower with annotations, a 3 is appropriate—it contributes some value but not rich behavioral specifics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with zero fat. It front-loads the purpose, then contrasts with siblings, then gives scoping guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is logical.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for an agent to use correctly. It covers what the tool does, how to scope, and when not to use it (independent expenditures). Nothing essential is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description only adds a high-level scoping hint ('Scope with a spending committee_id, a benefiting candidate_id, or a cycle'), which minimally supplements the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly identifies the tool as searching coordinated party expenditures (Schedule F), with a precise verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling openfec_search_expenditures (independent expenditures) and direct contributions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It names the alternative tool (openfec_search_expenditures) and the condition that distinguishes them (coordination vs. not). It also provides scoping guidance (committee_id, candidate_id, or cycle) and notes the default behavior of unscoped queries spanning all years.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct FEC resource or action, and even closely related tools are explicitly differentiated. Independent versus coordinated expenditures and legal search versus legal document retrieval are described in enough detail that an agent should not misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools share the openfec_ prefix and follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern: get for direct retrieval, lookup for calendar/election lookups, and search for queryable datasets. The naming is highly consistent across the full tool set.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well-scoped for a campaign-finance data server covering candidates, committees, money flows, filings, legal documents, calendar, and elections. Each tool represents a meaningful slice of the domain without unnecessary overlap or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core FEC workflows thoroughly: candidates, committees, contributions, disbursements, independent and coordinated expenditures, filings, legal documents, calendar, and elections. The only notable gaps are specialized FEC categories such as electioneering communications and communication costs, which are not exposed.