Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Emissions

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), correct handling of fiscal year ends, sorting by primary metric, and output with citation URIs. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads trigger phrases and purpose. It efficiently conveys all key points without redundancy. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet-points for readability, but overall concise.

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, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: input constraints, data sources, sorting, and output format (paired data + citations). Error handling or edge cases are not mentioned, but the provided information is sufficient for correct usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description further clarifies parameter usage with concrete examples (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names for drug) and the allowed range (2-5). This adds significant practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 starts with clear trigger phrases ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y') and explicitly states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by urging preference over sequential single-pack lookups, making the purpose and scope very clear.

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 provides clear examples of when to use ('which is bigger', 'rank these companies') and explicitly states to prefer this tool over sequential single-entity lookups. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'entity_profile' for single lookups, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Epa Emissions 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set contains multiple groups with overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research for data queries, multiple Polymarket tools, and memory tools). However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so ambiguity is moderate but not severe.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others use domain-prefixed noun_verb (ghg_emissions_by_sector, polymarket_arbitrage). This mix, combined with a server name that doesn't match the tool domain, makes the naming pattern unclear.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Epa Emissions' which suggests a narrow focus. Only 5 tools (ghg_*, tri_*) are related to emissions; the rest are unrelated, making the count inappropriate for the server's assumed purpose.

Completeness2/5

For an EPA/emissions server, the tool set is incomplete: it lacks other emissions data (e.g., air quality, water quality, enforcement). The inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., Polymarket, memory) does not compensate for missing core emissions coverage.

Resources