Skip to main content
Glama

Eodhd

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial detail beyond the annotations: it explains data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), fiscal year handling, metric sorts by primary metric, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). Annotations already indicate idempotency and read-only, which the description reinforces.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently packs examples, behavior, and data sources. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for entity types), but every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The front-loading with user-facing phrases is helpful.

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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources, sorting, citations), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what data is returned, how results are sorted, and efficiency claims. Without an output schema, the description adequately explains return values.

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 still enriches understanding: it clarifies how the 'type' parameter affects data retrieval (companies: financials; drugs: adverse events/trials) and what 'values' accept (tickers/CIKs or drug names), plus explains result sorting. This goes beyond the schema's basic enum and array description.

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 specifies the tool's purpose as side-by-side comparison of 2–5 entities (companies or drugs) in one parallel call, using clear example queries like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes from sequential lookups, which are siblings, so the tool's unique function is unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to ALWAYS PREFER this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, providing strong usage guidance. However, it does not detail when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the sequential lookup contrast.

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

All Eodhd 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route research questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all hunt prediction-market edges; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence do nearly the same job. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent would still struggle to pick the right tool in these clusters.

Naming Consistency2/5

Everything is snake_case, but there is no coherent pattern: some names are verb_noun (compare_entities, validate_claim), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), some are prefixed by domain (eodhd_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ai_visibility_*), and the Eodhd prefix clashes with the Pipeworx family. The conventions feel inherited from multiple unrelated codebases rather than a unified design.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is already heavy for most servers, but the real problem is that only 2 tools (eodhd_eod_prices, eodhd_fundamentals) relate to the server's stated purpose. The other 31 span Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm dependency checking — a massively over-scoped grab bag for a server named 'Eodhd'.

Completeness2/5

For the nominal EODHD domain the surface is severely incomplete: no splits, dividends, options, exchanges list, or other standard EODHD endpoints — just prices and fundamentals. As a general research/data platform it is broad rather than deep, mixing a decent question-answering core with unrelated one-off utilities, so no single coherent lifecycle is fully covered.

Resources