Skip to main content
Glama

Find Drugmaker Part D Costs and Records

drug_money_company
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a drug company in the Medicare Drug Money Register by a substring of a reviewed parent company or trade group, of a labeler string as CMS prints it, or of a name the White House or the proclamation's annexes print for it. Returns up to 5 parents or labelers: for a parent, its Part D gross drug cost by year (annual and preliminary kept apart) with its share of all Part D, its largest drugs, every labeler string the reviewed table maps to it with the basis and reason (and the annual report read, where the mapping rests on one), its White House announcement and list membership and its Annex II and Annex III entries as printed, and the side columns: its connected PAC's contributions to candidates' committees by cycle (no committee it gave to, candidate or party is named), its 2025 lobbying reports (in-house expenses and outside firms' income are each the report's total for all issues and are never added together), the 2025 inaugural committee's report and its LD-203 cross-check (the same gift reported twice, never added), and super PAC membership, with the caption; for a labeler with no parent asserted or named as its own labeler, its gross drug cost for the last annual year and the earliest preliminary year, and the reason. An empty column is a search result, not a fact about the company. Labelers are named as CMS prints them; a parent company comes only from the register's published, reviewed table, with the reason for each mapping. Each figure is named in its record's own words: "gross drug cost" (CMS), CMS's negotiated prices ("negotiated prices, which the statute refers to as maximum fair prices"), "announced an agreement" (the White House), "ad valorem duty rate" (the proclamation) and CMS's "estimated savings". Gross is never net: gross drug cost is before manufacturers' rebates, which CMS may not publish, so a lower gross cost per prescription is never called a saving; CMS's own net estimate is shown beside every claims-based price figure, or the answer says that CMS gives none. Annual years come from CMS's annual file; the later periods come from its preliminary quarterly file, are labelled preliminary and are never put in one series with the annual years. The side columns (connected-PAC money from the FEC bulk files, 2025 lobbying reports from lda.gov, the 2025 inaugural committee's report and its LD-203 cross-check, and super PAC membership) are separate records shown side by side: never added to drug cost or to each other, and never put in date sequence with an agreement, a tariff or a price. Every answer carries the register's question note: these records show Medicare's gross drug costs as CMS reports them, CMS's negotiated prices and estimates, and the government's announcements and proclamations; they do not show rebates paid, what any company agreed to beyond the published texts, or why any price or agreement was set. Every answer also carries the side-by-side caption, the as-of date, each file's date, the source page on morvs.ai and the data's licence. Where FEC figures appear, the answer quotes the FEC's restriction on the sale or use of individual contributor information (52 U.S.C. 30111(a)(4)). Institutions only: no prescriber, physician, official, signer or member of Congress is named; labeler strings that read as a person's name are withheld and appear only as counts. A name that matches only a withheld string answers exactly like a name that matches nothing. No party label is given.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRequired case-insensitive substring of a parent company, trade group or labeler string as CMS prints it, for example Pfizer or Janssen; at most 80 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description extensively discloses data limitations (gross vs net, annual vs preliminary never combined, side columns never added, empty column is a search result, withheld names, FEC restrictions), far exceeding what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely long and dense, with repeated caveats ('never added', 'never put in one series', 'separate records') that could be compressed. The key purpose is buried under many clauses, making it hard to scan despite containing useful information.

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 no output schema and a complex, multi-source dataset, the description thoroughly covers what is returned (parents, labelers, side columns, preliminary vs annual years), what is excluded, and the register's question note and captions. It leaves little ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already defines it as a case-insensitive substring of a parent company or labeler. The description adds that the name may also be a White House or proclamation-annex name, which is extra semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('a drug company in the Medicare Drug Money Register') and specifies the matching basis. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or distinguish itself from drug_money_drug, drug_money_agreements, or drug_money_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives constraints such as 'Institutions only' and 'no prescriber... is named', but never says when to use this tool instead of a sibling like drug_money_drug or drug_money_agreements. There is no explicit routing guidance.

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.

Resources