Skip to main content
Glama

Ai Briefing

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Compare Entities

compare_entities
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Compare X and Y" / "X vs Y" / "X versus Y" / "which is bigger / better / larger / more profitable" / "rank these companies" / "head to head" — side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. type="company" pulls LATEST 10-K revenue + net income + cash + long-term debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL (off-calendar fiscal years handled correctly — AAPL Sep, NVDA Jan, etc.). type="drug" pulls FAERS adverse-event counts, FDA approval counts, active trial counts. Results sorted by primary metric so "largest" / "most" / "biggest" reads off the top of the response. Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity. Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valuesYesFor company: 2–5 tickers/CIKs (e.g., ["AAPL","MSFT"]). For drug: 2–5 names (e.g., ["ozempic","mounjaro"]).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral details: results sorted by primary metric, correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years, return of citation URIs, and efficiency claim (replaces 8–15 sequential lookups). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with natural language queries and packs detailed behavior into a dense paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy; could be tightened slightly without losing 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the return format (paired data with citation URIs), data sources, sorting behavior, and edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years). It leaves no major gaps for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: clarifies that type='company' pulls 10-K data from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with precise fields, while type='drug' pulls FAERS, FDA approval, and trial counts. It also explains the required format for values (tickers/CIKs for companies, names for drugs).

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 lists clear user queries ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'rank these companies') and explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like entity_profile that likely handle single entity lookups.

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 explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly recommending this tool over iterative single-entity calls.

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

All Ai Briefing 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and numerous tools for AI news/tools (get_ai_news, get_ai_toolbelt, get_briefing, get_model_landscape, etc.). This will cause an agent to frequently misselect the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_entities, discover_tools, get_briefing). However, a few deviate like 'bet_research' (noun_verb) and 'what_happened' (phrase), but overall the pattern is largely consistent.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server called 'Ai Briefing', which suggests a focused purpose. The tool count spans multiple domains (AI visibility, Pipeworx queries, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions) making it feel overstuffed and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many aspects of its broad domain (querying, comparing, subscribing, memory), but there are notable gaps: no tool for modifying subscriptions, no user profile management, and the AI news tools overlap rather than cover distinct needs.

Resources