Skip to main content
Glama

Bungie

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"]).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals that for type='company' it pulls 10-K financials from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with proper fiscal-year handling, and for type='drug' it pulls FAERS/FDA/active trial counts. It also notes sorted output and citation URIs, adding significant behavioral detail.

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 clear and front-loaded with trigger phrases, but it is somewhat verbose—three sentences plus examples could be slightly tightened while retaining all essential guidance.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity' and notes that results are sorted by main metric. Given the tool's complexity (two entity types, data sources, sorting), this is complete enough for reliable agent selection and invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value: it explains that 'company' pulls financial data while 'drug' pulls counts, and gives concrete examples for the values parameter (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names). This enriches the schema definitions.

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 natural-language triggers like 'Compare X and Y' and specifies a side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs. It clearly distinguishes this from sequential single-pack lookups, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also provides concrete example queries (which is bigger, rank these companies) that help the agent decide when to invoke the tool.

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

All Bungie 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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set mixes Destiny 2 game tools with a large suite of general data querying tools from Pipeworx. Within the data querying subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which to use. The Destiny tools are more distinct, but overall, the set has noticeable ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing single-word names (character, clan), snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), and compound names with underscores (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). There is no uniform verb_noun or other predictable pattern, making it difficult for an agent to infer functionality from the name alone.

Tool Count2/5

With 43 tools, the server is bloated for its stated name 'Bungie'. Many tools are unrelated to Bungie (e.g., Pipeworx data tools, Polymarket tools), suggesting the server aggregates multiple domains without clear scoping. The tool count is too high for a coherent set focused on a single service.

Completeness2/5

For the Bungie game domain, the set is fairly complete (characters, clans, stats). However, the inclusion of numerous unrelated tools (financial, economic, prediction market) fragments completeness. The server lacks a clear domain, leaving gaps in both the Bungie-specific and the general data querying aspects when considered as a unified set.

Resources