Skip to main content
Glama

List Drug Pricing Agreements and Annexes

drug_money_agreements
Read-onlyIdempotent

The 2025-26 drug-pricing agreements in the Medicare Drug Money Register, optionally filtered by company (a substring of a company as the White House, the annexes or the reviewed table name it). Returns the White House fact sheets by date and subject, each with the companies it announced an agreement with or listed, as named, and its quoted lines (a sheet is cited by date and subject; the agreements' texts are not published, and nothing beyond the published texts is read into them); each company's announcement date and list membership; Proclamation 11020's Annex II (company-specific Commerce agreements with their dates) and Annex III (companies) exactly as printed; the proclamation's ad valorem duty rates and the Commerce and USTR notices, as printed; and CMS's payment models: GLOBE's estimates in the proposed and final rules set like for like, GUARD's proposed estimate, and GENEROUS, each with CMS's own estimate and the reasons CMS states, quoted. A White House or CMS share or estimate is that body's own, quoted, and is never set against a figure computed from CMS's files. 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". The blocks (Part D gross drug cost by company, negotiated prices and the negotiated drugs' claims, the 2025-26 agreements, tariffs and CMS's payment models, Part B drug spending, and skin substitutes as totals only) are never added together. 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. 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. No party label is given.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyNoOptional case-insensitive company name substring as the White House, the annexes or the reviewed table print it, for example Pfizer; at most 80 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds substantial non-obvious constraints beyond that: figures are never summed across blocks, CMS and White House estimates are quoted rather than recomputed, labels are given in each record's own words, and personal names are withheld as counts. These are valuable behavioral disclosures, though buried in excessive prose.

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 runs multiple dense semicolon-chained sentences. Caveats about captions, as-of dates, licence, institutional-only rules and label withholding are piled in, making the core purpose harder to scan. Only the first sentence is effectively front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does enumerate the fact sheets, annexes, notices, CMS models and caveats in detail. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what comes back, even though the delivery is excessively verbose.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional company parameter as a case-insensitive substring with an example and an 80-character limit. The description restates that it is a substring of a company as printed but adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: listing the 2025-26 drug-pricing agreements in the Medicare Drug Money Register, with an optional company filter. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as drug_money_company 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied through the optional company filter and the enumerated returned sections. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives like drug_money_company or drug_money_summary to help the agent choose correctly.

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.