Skip to main content
Glama

Could Have Been Email

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that it pulls specific data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts results by primary metric, and returns citation URIs. This adds rich behavioral context.

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?

The description is dense but all sentences add value. It front-loads the core action and usage guidance, then efficiently details data sources and behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple entity types, comparison logic, data sources), the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to use, what data is retrieved, how results are presented, and that it replaces many sequential calls. No output schema is needed for this level of detail.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds substantial meaning by explaining the interpretation of 'values' for each entity type (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names for drug) and the min/max constraints. Examples and the purpose of the 'type' parameter are clearly elaborated.

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. It provides example queries and distinguishes itself by recommending use over sequential single-pack lookups, making the purpose very specific and unambiguous.

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 says when to use the tool ('ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities') and describes what data it retrieves for each type. It gives clear context for its use without excluding alternatives, effectively guiding the agent.

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

All Could Have Been Email 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and the six polymarket tools heavily overlap in surfacing prediction-market edge. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily misselect between bet_research and polymarket_edges or between discover_tools and suggest_questions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some are compound noun phrases (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). ask_pipeworx also breaks the separator convention compared to ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and feels like a platform bundle rather than a focused server. It spans data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, AI visibility, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, which is far more surface area than one coherent server should present.

Completeness4/5

For the core data-research and prediction-market domains, coverage is strong: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage, fill-risk, subscriptions, and memory are all present with no major dead ends. The gaps are mostly the single-purpose oddballs (could_have_been_email_analyze, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't connect to the rest of the surface.

Resources