Skip to main content
Glama

Duration

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds context: for company type it pulls latest 10-K with off-calendar fiscal year handling, for drug type it pulls FAERS, FDA approvals, trial counts. Also mentions sorting by primary metric. 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?

Single paragraph front-loaded with trigger phrases, then explains behavior for both entity types. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Slightly longer but justified by complexity.

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?

All parameters are explained, return type is described (paired data + citation URIs), and key behaviors for both entity types are covered. Without output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to use 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%, but description adds meaning: explains that 'values' are tickers/CIKs for companies or drug names, and provides examples. This enriches the schema without repeating it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y' and explicit distinction from sequential lookups. It specifies the verb (compare), resource (entities), and scope (parallel call).

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' giving clear guidance. It describes when to use each type (company vs drug) but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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

All Duration 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes several overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve very similar purposes with only subtle differences in behavior (beta/grounded). Additionally, deep_research and validate_claim partially overlap with these. The prediction market tools are numerous but distinct, and memory/duration tools are clear. Overall, an agent would face some confusion when selecting among the ask_pipeworx variants.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use consistent underscore_case with descriptive verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim). A few memory and subscription tools are single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe, unsubscribe), which deviates slightly but remains readable. Overall naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier side. The server covers a broad scope (data queries, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, utilities, subscriptions), which justifies many tools, but some feel redundant (e.g., three variants of ask_pipeworx, multiple polymarket edge tools). A more focused set (around 20-25) would be more typical for coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is extensive, covering factual Q&A via a universal router, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and utilities. The meta-tool ask_pipeworx provides access to thousands of structured sources, so most data needs are addressable. Minor gaps include no direct tool for specific SEC filing retrieval beyond the meta-router, but this is covered indirectly.

Resources