Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto Fng

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Describes data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), proper fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). This adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 user query examples and is informative. While it is slightly long, every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return format and sorting. It covers both entity types and behavioral nuances. It is fairly complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that 'values' for companies are tickers/CIKs and for drugs are names, and explains what data each type pulls. This provides insight beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 entities (companies or drugs) in a single parallel call. It provides specific examples like 'compare X and Y' and distinguishes itself from sequential 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It includes example queries and explains that it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups, giving clear guidance on when this tool is optimal.

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

All Crypto Fng 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions through the same underlying catalog with only subtle differences. The polymarket family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) also has fuzzy boundaries. Only the Crypto Fear & Greed tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but there are notable deviations: the ask_pipeworx_* family uses object-style names, pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_edges are noun_noun, and current_index vs index_history uses 'index' inconsistently. The polymarket_* family mixes verb and noun styles internally.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a server ostensibly named 'Crypto Fng' — only 2 of the tools relate to that core purpose. The rest constitute a broad generic data-research and prediction-market platform that would be more appropriately scoped as its own server. The count exceeds the comfortable range for an agent to reason over.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual (broad) domain, the surface is fairly complete: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), querying (ask_pipeworx family), grounded verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle. The named crypto-sentiment domain is fully covered with current and historical index tools, though the underlying 5,708 pack tools are only reachable indirectly through the router.

Resources