Skip to main content
Glama

crypto

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Entity Profile

entity_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Tell me about X" / "research Acme" / "brief me on Tesla" / "what does Apple do" / "company profile for Microsoft" / "give me the rundown on NVDA" / "everything you know about $TICKER" — full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view. Fans out across SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO patents, federal contracts (USAspending), FDA-licensed biologics (Purple Book), H-1B hiring (DOL LCA), news and GLEIF, and returns: cik + company_name (+ resolved_from/resolved_to when value was a name); recent_filings (up to 5 with pipeworx://edgar/company/{cik}/filings/{accession} URIs); fundamentals (LATEST 10-K Revenues + NetIncomeLoss + Cash, sorted period_end DESC); patents (USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated); federal_contracts (USAspending awards where the company is the recipient); fda_products (FDA-licensed biologics — vaccines, cell/gene therapies — from the Purple Book; a company with only small-molecule/generic drugs will show none here, that is expected, not a failure); hiring (H-1B sponsorship volume + salary range from DOL LCA filings); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. sources_used / sources_failed say which of these actually returned data for THIS company — an empty section is a real "no data", not a bug. Pass a ticker ("AAPL"), zero-padded CIK ("0000320193"), OR a company name ("Moderna") — names now resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match; a private company (no CIK/ticker) returns resolved:false with an explicit notes line, not a bare failure. type accepts "company" or "ticker" interchangeably — both take the same value shapes above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes"company" or "ticker" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"), or company name (e.g., "Moderna") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behaviors: parallel fan-out across sources, patent API sunset with soft-fail, GDELT→GNews fallback, and the exact return fields including URIs and sorting. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but densely packed with valuable information. It is front-loaded with user-intent examples and quickly establishes the tool's role. Each sentence adds meaningful context—preference, sources, return fields, input format—so every part earns its place.

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 sources, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It enumerates all returned fields, explains fallbacks and limitations, and provides usage context. Nothing needed for invocation or understanding return values is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description repeats the same parameter constraints (ticker or CIK, names not supported) but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the full burden.

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's purpose: "full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call." It uses specific verbs (profile, research, brief) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly preferring it over chaining single-pack lookups and by directing users to resolve_entity for name-only queries.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view." It also states exclusions: names are not supported, use resolve_entity first. The examples of user queries make it clear when this tool should be selected.

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

All crypto 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but some overlap exists (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all retrieve structured data with subtle differences). Competitor analytics (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also share similar goals.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow loose patterns within subgroups (get_crypto_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*), but overall there is no single consistent convention. Verbs and noun orders vary (e.g., get_crypto_price vs. validate_claim vs. remember).

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is high; many exceed the core 'crypto' domain (company profiles, npm dependencies, memory management, subscriptions). While each tool seems justified, the count feels heavy for a single server, risking cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers crypto basics (price, market, history), company data, prediction markets, and general data retrieval comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct on-chain crypto data), but cross-domain coverage is strong.

Resources