Skip to main content
Glama

Data Issy

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: data sources (EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of fiscal years, and result sorting.

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 yet comprehensive: starts with trigger phrases, then usage guidance, then per-type details, then output structure. No redundant sentences.

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 the simplicity of inputs and rich annotations, the description adequately covers data retrieved, sorting, and citation output. Lacks explicit output format but sufficient.

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 covers both parameters fully. The description adds richer context for each enum and explains input formats for values, enhancing understanding.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs. It provides trigger phrases and distinguishes 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises preferring this tool over sequential lookups for comparisons. It covers when to use but lacks explicit exclusion scenarios.

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

All Data Issy 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
Disambiguation3/5

The toolset is mostly organized by clear subdomains, but there are multiple overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer research questions and the beta version is currently identical to the stable router. Detailed descriptions reduce confusion, but an agent could still reasonably pick the wrong one for a given task. The entity, memory, and subscription tools are more clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lower_snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-led names (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-led names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and some odd pairings like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. No chaotic camelCase or inconsistent separators, but the convention is not uniform enough for a strong score.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is past the 25+ threshold and the surface spans many unrelated domains: structured data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility marketing, city open data, npm dependency checking, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool may be individually useful, but the collection feels like a platform dump rather than a tightly scoped server. A more focused server would split off prediction markets, AI visibility, and utility tools.

Completeness4/5

The main data-research workflow is well covered: discovery, routing, grounded answering, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, and search-within-results are all present. Prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscription lifecycles also have no major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no write/update path for open data and no subscription option for AI-visibility monitoring, but these are not central to the apparent core purpose.

Resources