Skip to main content
Glama

Edamam

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"]).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and output format including 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 relatively concise given the complexity, front-loading example queries and key benefit. Every sentence adds information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data points) and the presence of annotations, the description covers essential aspects: data sources, sorting, output format. No output schema but description mentions returned data, which is sufficient.

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 providing concrete examples for values (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names) and clarifying entity types, making parameter usage more intuitive.

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 one parallel call, providing specific examples of user queries and distinguishing from 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?

It explicitly advises to prefer this over sequential single-pack lookups and quantifies efficiency (replaces 8-15 lookups), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name.

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

All Edamam 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

The tool set includes multiple overlapping tools (ask_pipeworx variants, many polymarket tools) that serve similar purposes, and there is a sharp domain split between food tools and Pipeworx data tools, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (search_food), noun_verb (nutrition_analysis), prefixed (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and no pattern. Some use underscores, some use whole words.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side, and the scope is extremely broad (food, data queries, prediction markets, subscriptions), which could overwhelm an agent, but the number alone is not extreme.

Completeness2/5

As a food API server, it is missing key features like recipe details, ingredient substitution, or meal planning, while including many extraneous tools. The data analytics tools are extensive but not aligned with the server's stated purpose.

Resources