Skip to main content
Glama

LiveDataLink

by io.github.blackboxfoundry

open_payments_research

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Open Payments RESEARCH payments -- clinical research grants and study funding from pharma/device companies to doctors. Separate dataset from general payments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoProgram year (auto-discovers latest if omitted, e.g. '2024')
limitNoMax rows (default 20, max 100)
stateNoTwo-letter state code (e.g. 'CA', 'TX')
doctorNoDoctor last name (case-insensitive)
companyNoManufacturer/GPO name (partial match), e.g. 'Pfizer', 'Stryker', 'Johnson & Johnson'
specialtyNoMedical specialty (partial), e.g. 'Cardiology', 'Orthopaedic'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful context that this dataset is separate from general payments, but it doesn't disclose return shape, pagination, or default behavior beyond what the schema already communicates.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One compact, front-loaded sentence conveys the resource, a brief definition, and the critical dataset distinction. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a read-only search tool with six optional, fully documented filters and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement about return format, but 'Search' plus the record-level filter fields make the output shape inferable, and no output schema exists to bear that burden.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline of 3; it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 opens with 'Search Open Payments RESEARCH payments' and immediately defines the resource as clinical research grants and study funding. It also says 'Separate dataset from general payments,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like open_payments_search/open_payments_by_company.

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?

The description gives a clear selection context: use this when the request concerns research/study payments, not general Open Payments data. It states what makes the dataset distinct, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling or spell out a when-not-to-use rule.

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

All LiveDataLink toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily—company due-diligence and risk tools (counterparty_risk_score, company_trust_check, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, resolve_entity, entity_resolve), carrier vetting tools, sanctions screening tools, and recall tools all have subtle boundary distinctions. While descriptions are detailed, an agent navigating 294 tools will frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case domain-prefix pattern (fdic_, edgar_, sanctions_, congress_), which helps. However, verb placement is inconsistent—search_available_datasets vs cdc_dataset_query, resolve_entity vs entity_resolve—and synonyms like search, lookup, get, detail, fetch, and status are used interchangeably.

Tool Count1/5

294 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far beyond what an agent can reliably hold in context or select from accurately. The presence of tool-group discovery helpers mitigates but does not solve the fundamental scale problem.

Completeness4/5

The data breadth is genuinely extensive, covering finance, health, legal, real estate, transportation, energy, cyber, education, and many other domains, often with generic query fallbacks. Still, some capabilities are shallow or incomplete—package tracking stops at a link, property tools are demo-only in places, and caselaw coverage is limited—so it is not a fully complete surface.

Resources