Skip to main content
Glama

Color Pizza

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), handles off-calendar fiscal years, results sorted by primary metric, and returns citation URIs. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior.

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 example queries and is concise given the amount of information. Slightly dense but efficient; minor room for improved structure.

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 explains return format (paired data + citation URIs) and handles edge cases like off-calendar fiscal years. Covers all necessary context for effective tool use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds concrete examples for values (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names), constraints (min 2, max 5), and clarifies behavior of type parameter.

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 clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2–5 companies or drugs, with specific data sources and metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile by emphasizing parallel lookups.

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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and provides example queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for more than 5 entities).

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

All Color Pizza 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, such as `entity_profile` for company profiles and `recent_changes` for updates. However, some overlap exists between `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` (both query data, one with hallucination resistance), and among Polymarket-related tools (`bet_research`, `polymarket_edges`, `polymarket_arbitrage`). Detailed descriptions help distinguish them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., `ai_visibility_check`, `ask_pipeworx`, `bet_research`, `compare_entities`). No mixing of camelCase or other conventions. The names are descriptive and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool serves a specific function, the broad scope (color naming, Polymarket betting, company research, etc.) makes the count feel slightly high for a single server, though still manageable.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers color naming, company research, Polymarket, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, and data queries comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing retrieval without compound tools), but overall it provides a well-rounded surface for its diverse domain.

Resources