Query USASpending.gov federal contract awards and contractor recipient intelligence by recipient name to verify federal spending and contractor activity.
USASpending.gov federal contract awards and contractor recipient intelligence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipient | Yes | Federal contractor or grant recipient name (e.g. 'Palantir') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no indication of result volume, pagination, data freshness, rate limits, or whether a missing recipient errors or returns empty. For an open-world external API, those traits matter.
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?
It is a single short phrase with zero filler, which is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being achieved through efficient phrasing. There is no front-loaded statement of what happens or what is returned.
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?
The tool is simple (one string parameter, read-only) and has no output schema, so the description should at minimum say what a call returns and in what shape. It says neither, leaving the agent unable to judge whether this yields an award list, aggregate totals, or recipient profile data before committing to the call.
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?
There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving a naming example ('Palantir'). The description adds only the phrase 'contractor recipient intelligence', which hints at the entity type but provides no matching rules (exact name vs. fuzzy, UEI/CAGE identifiers, parent vs. subsidiary). Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a data source (USASpending.gov) and a resource ('federal contract awards', 'contractor recipient intelligence'), which lets an agent infer retrieval of award data for a named contractor. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never states the operation performed (search? summarize? list awards?). The domain distinguishes it from siblings, but the action does not.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the 17 sibling tools (e.g., gleif_lei_kyb for entity verification or cfpb_complaints for other federal data), and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the federal-procurement lookup purely from the domain name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.