Skip to main content
Glama

Data360

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 the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: it pulls data from specific sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handles off-calendar fiscal years correctly, returns paired data with citation URIs, and sorts results by primary metric. This adds substantial context not present in 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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loaded with user-facing examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, from usage examples to data source details to result format. No redundant or superfluous information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: input parameters, data sources, result structure (paired data + citation URIs), and behavioral specifics (sorting, fiscal year handling). It is fully complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining what each 'type' returns (e.g., 'company' pulls revenue, net income, cash, long-term debt) and how 'values' should be formatted (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names). This goes well 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 starts with multiple user query examples ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', etc.) and clearly states the tool's function: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. It distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, making the purpose highly 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 states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over an alternative. It also notes that it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups, further reinforcing its preferred use case.

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

All Data360 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
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools answer factual questions (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, deep_research), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to the stable router right now, creating genuine selection ambiguity. Most other clusters—memory, subscriptions, entity research, Polymarket—are reasonably distinct once the verbose descriptions are read.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case with recognizable family prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, data360_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), which aids grouping. The convention mixes verb-first names like resolve_entity with noun/prefix names like polymarket_edges, but it is still readable and predictable enough.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the heavy range, and the server bundles several unrelated concerns—universal data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility marketing, and npm dependency scanning—into one surface. Many tools earn their place, but the aggregate is overloaded and likely to slow tool-selection.

Completeness4/5

The data-research side has strong coverage: discovery, universal routing, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent-changes tracking, and in-record search. Subscription lifecycle and memory are complete, and the prediction-market suite even covers fill-risk and edge persistence; only a few niche read/write operations are absent.

Resources