Skip to main content
Glama

emojihub

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds rich context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs in output. 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 dense but well-structured, starting with trigger phrases, then usage preference, then type-specific details. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff. Length is justified given the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values ('paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity') and sorting behavior. It also provides scale context ('Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups'), making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 meaningful context beyond schema by explaining what type='company' vs type='drug' pull (revenue, net income, adverse-event counts, etc.) and providing examples for values. It clarifies implicit behavior like fiscal-year handling.

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 in one parallel call, with trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and 'Replaces 8–15 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 says when to use this tool ('when comparing entities', 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups') and describes behavior for each type. However, it does not name specific sibling tools (e.g., entity_profile) as alternatives, making the guidance strong but slightly less explicit than a direct alternative reference.

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

All emojihub 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the numerous Pipeworx query and prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_fill_risk). Descriptions help differentiate them, so the ambiguity is minor.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, validate_claim), phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and standalone nouns (pipeworx_feedback). While readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less cohesive.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, with many highly specialized prediction market and Pipeworx management tools. The server's name 'emojihub' suggests a narrow focus, but the actual scope is much broader, making the count feel somewhat inflated for its apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: factual data retrieval, company profiles, comparisons, claim validation, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and emoji lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for simple web search), but overall coverage is comprehensive.

Resources