Skip to main content
Glama

KeyVex

get_open_payments

Read-only

Returns CMS Open Payments records — the Sunshine Act database of every payment / transfer of value from drug + device manufacturers and GPOs to US physicians, non-physician practitioners, and teaching hospitals (~15M records per program year, 2019→present). LIVE passthrough to CMS's own API: results reflect CMS's current data and total_count is CMS's authoritative count for the filtered query (the results array is just the requested page). Use this when the user asks about: pharma/device money to doctors, a company's physician-payment footprint, speaker-fee / consulting / royalty programs, industry funding of research (with ClinicalTrials.gov IDs), or physician ownership stakes in manufacturers. payment_type selects the dataset (schemas differ; rows are CMS's fields verbatim): general (default) — meals, travel, consulting, speaker fees, royalties, honoraria. Fields incl. nature_of_payment_or_transfer _of_value, name_of_drug_or_biological_or_device_or_medical supply_1, covered_recipient_specialty_1. research — research payments incl. name_of_study, clinicaltrials_gov_identifier, preclinical_research_indicator. ownership — physician ownership/investment interests (total_amount_invested_usdollars, value_of_interest, terms_of_interest); recipient fields are physician*. summarize=true returns CMS's own pre-aggregated per-(company, nature) totals for the year — transaction counts + dollar totals per payment nature. The nature codes in that dataset ship without a public CMS legend; KeyVex labels the seven codes it has VERIFIED by exact count+total reconciliation against detail data (1=Consulting Fee, 2=Speaker/faculty compensation, 6=Food and Beverage, 7=Travel and Lodging, 9=Charitable Contribution, 10=Royalty or License, 14=Grant); unverified codes pass through with an empty label rather than a guess. Matching: company is a substring (matches subsidiaries: 'pfizer' catches PFIZER INC.); recipient names are EXACT (CMS stores uppercase; we uppercase for you); npi is the exact National Provider Identifier — the precise join key to get_oig_exclusions. Payments are attributed to the manufacturer AS FILED — no ticker/CIK; try the operating-company name. Program years: 2019 through the latest published year (CMS refreshes semiannually; year defaults to the latest). Pagination: limit ≤ 500 per page (CMS cap), use offset for more. Pure-publisher posture: CMS's records as filed, parsed by KeyVex (the source record is authoritative) — no derived influence scores. Disclosure ≠ wrongdoing; these are lawful, statutorily-disclosed payments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npiNoRecipient National Provider Identifier (exact, 10 digits). Precise join key to get_oig_exclusions.
yearNoProgram year (e.g., 2023). Default: latest published year.
limitNoRecords per page. Default 25, max 500 (CMS page cap).
stateNoTwo-letter recipient state code (e.g., 'TX').
natureNoSubstring against nature of payment (general only; e.g., 'consulting', 'speaker', 'royalty', 'food').
offsetNoPagination offset into the filtered result set.
companyNoSubstring against the paying manufacturer / GPO name (e.g., 'pfizer', 'medtronic').
productNoSubstring against the associated drug / device name (general only; e.g., 'eliquis', 'ozempic').
summarizeNotrue = CMS's pre-aggregated per-(company, nature) yearly totals instead of individual payments.
payment_typeNoDataset: general (default — meals/consulting/speaker fees), research, or ownership (physician stakes).
recipient_last_nameNoRecipient physician / practitioner last name (exact, case-insensitive).
recipient_first_nameNoRecipient first name (exact, case-insensitive).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is a live passthrough to CMS, total_count is authoritative while the array is only one page, limit is capped at 500 by CMS, summarize returns pre-aggregated CMS totals, and unverified nature codes pass through with an empty label rather than a guess. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the bar asks for.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded well (what it is, then when to use it), but the block is very long and contains hard-wrapped fragments in the payment_type bullet list that read like formatting artifacts. Most content earns its place, yet it could be tightened considerably without losing meaning.

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?

For a 12-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers dataset selection, matching rules, pagination, aggregation mode, temporal coverage and a disclosure-not-wrongdoing caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description goes well beyond it: company is a substring that catches subsidiaries ('pfizer' → PFIZER INC.) while recipient names and npi are exact, nature and product apply only to the general dataset, and rows are CMS's fields verbatim with schema differences per payment_type. This adds real matching semantics the schema does not encode.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns CMS Open Payments records') and immediately scopes it (Sunshine Act, ~15M records/program year, 2019→present). The three payment_type datasets are enumerated with distinguishing fields, so an agent can tell what data it will get versus siblings like get_oig_exclusions or get_drug_adverse_events.

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 'Use this when the user asks about:' list covers pharma money to doctors, company payment footprint, speaker/consulting/royalty programs, research funding and ownership stakes. It also names the join key (get_oig_exclusions) and tells the agent to try operating-company names rather than tickers. Clear when-to-use and how to orient queries.

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