Skip to main content
Glama

Datalastic

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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial context: parallel execution, per-type data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. FAERS/FDA), off-calendar fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and front-loaded with trigger phrases, and every sentence adds meaningful information. However, it is a single run-on paragraph; a bulleted structure would improve scannability without sacrificing content.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers return format (paired data + citation URIs), metric sources per entity type, entity count limits, and sorting behavior. This is complete for the tool's complexity and leaves no critical gaps for the agent.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining what each type ('company' vs 'drug') returns, providing example values, and clarifying output sorting. This gives the agent enough to construct valid calls with confidence.

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 explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call, with specific trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as entity_profile or 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (comparison queries) and explicitly says to prefer it over sequential single-pack lookups. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g., for single-entity lookups).

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

All Datalastic 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 occupy nearly the same question-answering role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual queries, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The polymarket_* family also has overlapping opportunity-detection responsibilities, so an agent can easily select a near-duplicate tool for the same intent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and use recognizable domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, datalastic_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set easy to group. The main deviation is that some names are verb-first (ask, compare, subscribe) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, bet_research), but this is minor and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools or overlapping research/opportunity scanners that could be consolidated. The breadth is justified only partially; several utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.

Completeness3/5

As a general research and monitoring toolkit it covers the full life cycle: discover, ask, verify, compare, profile, cite, remember, subscribe, and alert. But the server is named Datalastic yet the maritime surface is thin (only live position and radius lookup, no historical tracking, port calls, or fleet tools), and a few one-off utilities don't fit a coherent domain.

Resources