Skip to main content
Glama

Diffbot

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, result sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with 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 somewhat long but front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence adds useful information, and it avoids redundancy. Minor improvement could be better structuring with bullet points, but it's efficient overall.

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 explains return structure (paired data + citation URIs). It covers both entity types and mentions result ordering. The tool has only 2 simple parameters, and the description provides all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 value by explaining the meaning of each type value (company vs. drug) and the format for values (tickers/CIKs for companies, names for drugs). It also clarifies constraints like max 5 items. This goes beyond the schema's brief 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 performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single call. It uses specific verbs like 'compare' and identifies the resources (companies/drugs). It distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups, which are implied as alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also gives example queries that should trigger this tool, making it easy for the agent to decide when to use it over siblings like entity_profile.

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

All Diffbot 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

Multiple research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and company analysis tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, bet_research) overlap heavily; the five polymarket_* tools also require careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must parse long disambiguation text to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim, remember), noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), product-prefixed (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), and brand-prefixed (diffbot_company, diffbot_extract). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes are internally consistent but the overall scheme is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 3-15 sweet spot and in the 'too many' range. Many tools are meta-variants (4 ask_pipeworx flavors, 5 polymarket tools, 2 AI-visibility tools) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription subdomains are each fairly complete at a meta level, with few dead ends. Gaps include no subscription update (delete + recreate required), no explicit memory update, and no direct way to execute an arbitrary discovered Pipeworx tool aside from routing through ask_pipeworx.

Resources