Retrieve budgetary resources and obligations for a federal agency using its 3-digit code and fiscal year. Returns spending data from USASpending.gov.
Get budgetary resources and obligations for an agency in a fiscal year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agency_code | Yes | 3-digit agency code (e.g., '075' for HHS) | |
| fiscal_year | No | Fiscal year (e.g., 2024) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose output format, whether it returns aggregate or detailed records, data source specifics, or any access limitations. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the low parameter count and no output schema, the description covers the essential intent but omits any details about the return structure or typical usage context. It is minimally sufficient but not enriched with additional contextual guidance that would help an agent select it confidently over siblings.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions with examples. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It neither clarifies parameter relationships nor provides additional format details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('budgetary resources and obligations') and the scope ('for an agency in a fiscal year'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_usaspending_awards and get_usaspending_spending_by_category, which focus on different aspects of spending data.
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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving agency-level budget/obligation data for a given fiscal year, which differentiates it from the award- and category-focused sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, falling short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.