Skip to main content
Glama

Always Seven

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: parallel call, results sorted by primary metric, returns paired data and pipeworx:// citation URIs, handles off-calendar fiscal years. 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 informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads trigger phrases and key instructions. Every sentence adds value, but could be tightened 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return data: specific financial metrics for companies, adverse-event and trial counts for drugs, sorting by primary metric, citation URIs. It also mentions edge case handling (off-calendar fiscal years). Complete enough.

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%. Description expands on both parameters: type enum values with detailed explanations (company vs. drug data sources), values array with constraints (2-5 items), examples for both types (tickers/CIKs for companies, names for drugs). Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'compare', 'side-by-side comparison', 'pulls LATEST 10-K revenue + net income + cash + long-term debt' for companies, and 'FAERS adverse-event counts, FDA approval counts, active trial counts' for drugs. It distinguishes from siblings by asserting it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups and should be preferred for comparisons.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It lists example queries that trigger this tool and specifies entity types and count requirements (2-5). No when-not-to-use stated, but the guidance is clear.

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

All Always Seven 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also has fuzzy boundaries — both bet_research and polymarket_edges claim 'should I bet on X', and discover_tools versus suggest_questions both serve discovery. Despite very detailed descriptions, an agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly snake_case and readable, with coherent micro-families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx variants, remember/recall/forget). However, patterns are mixed: verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt) sits alongside noun-led names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and entity-related tools use three different conventions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, entity_profile). It's consistent within families but not across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well past the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set, and the scope is a scattered grab bag: a joke RNG, an AI-visibility probe, a 5,708-tool data router, prediction-market arb analytics, key-value memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and a feedback channel. Some of these are arguably platform additions rather than core tools, but as presented the count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The major workflow areas are well covered — data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, profiles, and change feeds; memory and subscriptions each have full lifecycle coverage. However, the server repeatedly references pipeworx:// citation URIs as fetchable yet provides no record-fetching tool, and the diffuse purpose makes it hard to assess what 'complete' even means. Notable gaps exist around citation resolution and execution of the arbitrage signals the Polymarket tools generate.

Resources