Causal Decision Agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

multi_cutoff_rd

Read-only

Estimate causal treatment effects at multiple cutoffs via regression discontinuity, supporting sharp/fuzzy designs and flagging manipulation or bandwidth sensitivity.

Instructions

User-friendly alias for :func:sp.rdmc (multi-cutoff RD). Assumptions: Conditional expectations of potential outcomes are continuous at the cutoff; Units cannot precisely manipulate the running variable around the cutoff (no sorting); For fuzzy designs: monotonicity of treatment take-up at the cutoff. Pre-conditions: A continuous running/forcing variable with a known cutoff that (sharply or fuzzily) assigns treatment; Enough observations in a neighbourhood of the cutoff to fit a local polynomial. Failure modes: Density of the running variable jumps at the cutoff (manipulation / sorting) -> Run a McCrary / density test (rdplotdensity); if manipulation is present the design is invalid near the cutoff; Estimate swings with the bandwidth -- results are not robust -> Report a bandwidth-sensitivity curve and use a data-driven MSE-optimal bandwidth. Alternatives: sp.rdrobust, sp.rdrandinf, sp.rdbwselect. Typical minimum N: 500.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes	Primary running variable, regressor, or feature input for this estimator.
`y`	Yes	Outcome variable column name or outcome array.
`alpha`	No	Significance level for confidence intervals and tests.
`detail`	No	Payload depth: 'minimal' (~150 tokens) for sub-step calls where only the point estimate is needed; 'standard' (~1K tokens) for diagnostics + coefficient table; 'agent' (~2K tokens, default) adds violations / next_steps / suggested_functions so the LLM can plan its next call without another round-trip.	agent
`kernel`	No	Kernel function used for weighting or smoothing.	triangular
`cutoffs`	No	cutoffs parameter (Optional[List[float]]).
`pooling`	No	pooling parameter (str).	ivw
`as_handle`	No	If true, cache the fitted result on the server and return result_id + result_uri alongside the JSON payload so a subsequent tools/call can chain without re-running.
`bandwidth`	No	Bandwidth used for local smoothing or kernel weighting.
`data_path`	Yes	Absolute path or URL to a data file. Supported: .csv / .tsv / .txt (delimited), .parquet / .pq, .feather / .arrow, .xlsx / .xls, .dta (Stata), .json / .jsonl. Schemes: file://, s3://, gs://, https://.
`result_id`	No	Optional handle to a previously-fitted result (returned by an earlier call when as_handle=true). Tools that operate on a fitted object accept this in place of re-supplying data_path + columns.
`cutoff_var`	No	cutoff_var parameter (Optional[str]).
`data_columns`	No	Optional column projection. Parquet/Feather/Stata loaders honour this for fast partial reads.
`data_sample_n`	No	Optional uniform random subsample size (seed=0, deterministic) — useful on huge panels.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond this: it outlines assumptions, failure modes (e.g., density jumps, bandwidth sensitivity) and provides guidance on how to address them. It does not contradict the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately lengthy but each section (assumptions, pre-conditions, failure modes, alternatives, minimum N) provides distinct value. It is well-structured with clear labels, making it easy to scan. Not overly verbose given the complexity of the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description provides assumptions, pre-conditions, failure modes, alternatives, and a minimum sample size guideline, which is comprehensive for an RD tool. Nothing critical appears missing.

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 all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as an alias for sp.rdmc (multi-cutoff RD) and specifies its function: multi-cutoff regression discontinuity estimation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from alternatives by naming sp.rdrobust, sp.rdrandinf, and sp.rdbwselect, which helps an agent select the right tool.

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?

The description provides explicit assumptions (continuous conditional expectations, no sorting, monotonicity for fuzzy designs) and pre-conditions (continuous running variable, known cutoff, sufficient observations). It also details failure modes and recommended remedies (e.g., density tests, bandwidth sensitivity) and lists alternative tools, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server