Skip to main content
Glama

Dart Kr

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?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) declare safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds significant context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. No contradiction.

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?

Concise 3-4 sentence description front-loaded with user-query examples. Every sentence adds value: usage patterns, data specifics, and efficiency claim. No redundancy.

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 2 required params, no output schema, and rich annotations, description covers what each type returns, result sorting, and replaces many lookups. Lacks details on error handling or response format but sufficient for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for both 'type' and 'values'. Description enriches by explaining what data each type pulls (e.g., 'latest 10-K revenue + net income' for companies, 'FAERS adverse-event counts' for drugs) and provides examples for 'values'.

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?

Description leads with clear example queries ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and explicitly states the action: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by advising 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use examples covering typical comparison scenarios (e.g., 'rank these companies', 'head to head'). States preference over sequential lookups. Missing explicit when-not-to-use but context is strong.

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

All Dart Kr 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

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta deliberately matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as what-can-I-do entry points, and ai_visibility_check is just the single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent will struggle to pick the right variant without carefully reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools are snake_case and several families share clear prefixes (dart_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but the overall set mixes verb_noun (discover_tools, validate_claim), noun_phrase (entity_profile, deep_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and prefix-noun (dart_financials). Readable but not unified.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far above the 25+ heavy threshold, and the count is inflated by redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta is a literal duplicate today, suggest_questions overlaps discover_tools, and ai_visibility_check is subsumed by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The broad Pipeworx platform justifies many tools, but the exposed surface is bloated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the apparent domain well: universal querying (ask_pipeworx family + deep_research), tool discovery, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, Korean DART filings, Polymarket analysis/fill-risk, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Minor gaps remain—there's no explicit fetch-by-citation-URI tool despite claims those URIs are fetchable, and no way to retrieve full DART filing text beyond discovery.

Resources