Skip to main content
Glama

Datecalc

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'off-calendar fiscal years handled correctly', 'Results sorted by primary metric', and 'Returns paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs'. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat long but front-loaded with key trigger phrases and structured with clear sections. It packs a lot of information efficiently, though it could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description hints at return format (paired data + URIs). It covers both entity types thoroughly. Sibling tools include similar research tools, and the description clearly positions this as a comparison tool vs. those. Complete and comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains that 'company' pulls latest 10-K data and 'drug' pulls FAERS counts, and clarifies that values for company are tickers/CIKs, for drug are names. This adds significant context beyond the minimal 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs'. It uses specific trigger phrases like 'compare', 'rank', 'head to head'. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups and specifies data sources for each entity type.

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 states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also includes example queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though context implies it is for comparisons only.

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

All Datecalc 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as the multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) and the several query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). Memory tools (remember, recall, forget) also add to the confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case but vary in pattern: some are verb_noun (add_duration, compare_entities), others are noun_noun (entity_profile, date_diff) or single verbs (forget). This mix reduces predictability but is not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

The server name 'Datecalc' implies a narrow focus, yet 33 tools exist covering far more than date calculations. The count is too high for the implied purpose, and many tools are unrelated to the server's apparent domain.

Completeness2/5

For the implied date calculation domain, only three tools exist (add_duration, date_diff, date_info), leaving obvious gaps. For the actual broad data access domain, coverage is better but still lacks a cohesive structure.

Resources