Skip to main content
Glama
vikranthviki

Causal Decision Agent

by vikranthviki

qte_hd_panel

Read-only

Estimate quantile treatment effects in panel data with high-dimensional controls, using double-selection LASSO to select covariates and bootstrap inference for valid confidence intervals.

Instructions

Panel quantile treatment effects with high-dimensional controls. Validation: validated evidence tier (known-truth, reference, external-parity, or Monte Carlo artifact). Assumptions: Selection-on-observables (unconfoundedness + overlap) or, for IV variants, instrument validity; For IV-QTE: rank invariance / rank similarity (monotonicity of the structural quantile function). Pre-conditions: Covariates, treatment, and outcome; for IV-quantile methods, a valid instrument; Enough data to estimate the outcome distribution across quantiles. Failure modes: Estimated conditional quantiles cross (non-monotone), or tail quantiles are unstable -> Use rearrangement / monotonization and avoid extreme quantiles where data are sparse. Alternatives: sp.qte, sp.iv, sp.dml. Typical minimum N: 500.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yYesOutcome variable column name or outcome array.
seNo``'bootstrap'`` resamples **units**, preserving within-unit dependence. There is no analytic option: Canay's two-step variance depends on the first step, and a naive quantile-regression SE would understate it.bootstrap
seedNoRandom seed for reproducible stochastic steps.
timeYesTime period column.
unitYesUnit identifier column.
alphaNoSignificance level for confidence intervals and tests.
treatYesTreatment indicator or first-treatment-period column.
detailNoPayload 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
methodNoSee the module docstring. ``'canay'`` assumes the individual effect is a pure location shift and needs a reasonably long panel.canay
n_bootNoNumber of bootstrap replications.
as_handleNoIf 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.
data_pathYesAbsolute 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://.
quantilesNoDefaults to ``(0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9)``.
result_idNoOptional 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.
covariatesYesCandidate control set; narrowed by double-selection LASSO.
lasso_alphaNoPenalty on standardised covariates. ``None`` uses the Belloni-Chernozhukov-Hansen plug-in penalty.
data_columnsNoOptional column projection. Parquet/Feather/Stata loaders honour this for fast partial reads.
data_sample_nNoOptional uniform random subsample size (seed=0, deterministic) — useful on huge panels.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral disclosure: failure modes (quantile crossing, tail instability), assumptions (rank invariance, unconfoundedness), and a typical minimum N. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps an agent anticipate and adapt to estimation issues.

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 organized into labeled sections (Validation, Assumptions, Pre-conditions, Failure modes, Alternatives, Typical minimum N), making it scannable for an agent. It is long but each section earns its place; the only opaque phrase is 'validated evidence tier', which slightly hurts clarity.

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 full parameter coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the critical context an agent needs: assumptions, preconditions, failure modes, alternatives, and a minimum N. No essential information for correct invocation is 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds only contextual notes (e.g., double-selection LASSO for covariates) but no new per-parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Panel quantile treatment effects') and further narrows with 'high-dimensional controls'. It also names alternatives (sp.qte, sp.iv, sp.dml), giving an agent a clear way to distinguish this tool from similar QTE estimators.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Pre-conditions and assumptions (e.g., selection-on-observables, instrument validity, enough data) signal when the tool is applicable, and an Alternatives section points to related tools. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over each named alternative, so guidance is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools