Skip to main content
Glama

usaspending-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Get Award Federal Accounts

usaspending_get_award_federal_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the Treasury federal accounts that funded an award, with the amount obligated from each and the funding agency behind it. This is the award → appropriation link: each row returns federal_account (AGENCY-MAIN format, e.g. 080-0120) to chain into usaspending_get_federal_account for the account budget detail. The award_id must be a generated_unique_award_id — from usaspending_search_awards (generated_internal_id field) or usaspending_get_award. Distinct from usaspending_get_award account_obligations_by_defc, which breaks funding down by Disaster/Emergency Funding code rather than by account. An award_id that does not exist returns an empty list rather than an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-based)
limitNoMaximum results per page (1–100)
award_idYesAward generated_unique_award_id (e.g., CONT_AWD_GSFC0198106DNAS526555_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-) — use generated_internal_id from usaspending_search_awards or generated_unique_award_id from usaspending_get_award

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
noticeNoRecovery hint when results are empty — the award_id may not exist or may have no account linkage. Absent when results are present.
resultsNoFederal accounts funding this award
award_idNoAward ID queried
totalCountNoTotal number of funding accounts across all pages (when available)
current_pageNoCurrent page returned
has_next_pageNoWhether there are more pages of funding accounts
page_metadataNoPagination metadata

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses a specific edge case: 'An award_id that does not exist returns an empty list rather than an error.' It also details the output format (federal_account in AGENCY-MAIN format), which is behavior not captured by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact yet dense with information. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, output format, ID requirement, differentiation from sibling, and edge-case behavior. There is no filler, and key details are front-loaded (the core function appears first).

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 availability of an output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how to source the parameter, how it differs from a sibling, and error behavior. It also explains the chaining use case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for award_id by specifying it must be a generated_unique_award_id and providing sources (generated_internal_id from search or generated_unique_award_id from get_award). This goes beyond the schema's example, earning a 4.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'List the Treasury federal accounts that funded an award, with the amount obligated from each and the funding agency behind it.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling usaspending_get_award's account_obligations_by_defc by noting the different breakdown (by account vs. by DEFC), making the 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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not guidance is provided: the description names an alternative (usaspending_get_award account_obligations_by_defc) and explains the key difference. It also instructs on how to obtain the required award_id (from usaspending_search_awards or usaspending_get_award) and suggests chaining the output to usaspending_get_federal_account.

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

All usaspending-mcp-server 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity or operation: agency, award, subaward, transaction, federal account, recipient, and various spending breakdowns. Even similar-sounding tools like get_award_federal_accounts vs get_federal_account are clearly separated by their core purpose (award funding sources vs account budget details).

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow the usaspending_<verb>_<object> pattern (e.g., get_award, search_recipients). The spending_* series breaks the verb-noun convention but is internally consistent. Minor deviation lowers the score slightly.

Tool Count4/5

At 18 tools, this is on the higher end of reasonable but each tool maps to a distinct USAspending API endpoint and covers a different aspect of federal spending. The count is justified by the breadth of the domain, though it feels slightly heavy.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers award search/detail, agency navigation, federal accounts, recipients, subawards, transactions, IDVs, and multiple spending aggregations (category, geography, time, disaster). No obvious dead ends: all ID-producing tools have corresponding lookup tools, and common workflows like award→federal account→breakdown are fully supported.

Resources