Skip to main content
Glama

Easypost

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS, FDA), handling of fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with common query patterns. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains that it returns paired data with citation URIs and that results are sorted by primary metric. This is sufficient for understanding the output. Could mention error handling or edge cases, but not required.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description goes far beyond by explaining what data each 'type' pulls, giving examples for 'values', and clarifying input formats (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names).

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 that this tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one call. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly preferring over sequential lookups and providing specific data sources for each 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 gives clear usage guidelines with example queries and explicitly states to prefer this over sequential single-pack lookups. However, it does not mention exclusions or when not to use it against sibling tools 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 Easypost 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

The ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded) are nearly identical, with beta explicitly matching stable, creating clear misselection risk. The five polymarket_* tools and several research tools (deep_research, bet_research, entity_profile) also overlap in purpose despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, with consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, easypost_), but mix verb-first (validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check) conventions. The server name 'Easypost' does not align with the overwhelmingly Pipeworx-focused tool set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy count, especially with three near-duplicate ask_pipeworx variants and many meta-tools. The set is also unfocused: only two shipping tools under an 'Easypost' label while the rest are a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

As an Easypost server, shipping coverage is severely incomplete (rates and tracking only, no label purchase, address verification, or refunds). Within the Pipeworx tools, the cited pipeworx:// URIs have no direct fetch-by-URI tool, leaving a notable dead end for agents trying to retrieve full records.

Resources