Skip to main content
Glama

Fdic

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. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, result sorting, and return format (paired data + 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 well-structured and front-loaded with trigger phrases. It is moderately lengthy but each sentence adds value. A slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains concise for the information conveyed.

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, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers behavioral nuances (fiscal year handling, sorting), return format (paired data + URIs), and efficiency claims. It leaves no obvious gaps for correct invocation.

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% and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains what each type retrieves, gives examples of values (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug), clarifies maxItems/minItems, and notes that results are sorted by primary metric. This exceeds baseline expectations.

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 uses specific trigger phrases like 'Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', and 'rank these companies', clearly stating it performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending preference over 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (e.g., when user says 'compare', 'vs', 'versus', 'rank') and gives a strong preference directive: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups'. It also clarifies that type='company' and type='drug' serve different use cases.

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

All Fdic 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same underlying data catalog, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all analyze prediction-market opportunities. Tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, and resolve_entity also blur together for company research.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all snake_case but follow no consistent convention: some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe), some are noun phrases (fdic_failures, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and some are verb_noun (fdic_get_institution, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). Even the fdic_* family mixes noun-only and verb_noun styles.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many.' The count is inflated by redundant meta-tools (three ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools, suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners) and unrelated purpose tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check) that do not belong in an FDIC-named server.

Completeness3/5

The universal ask_pipeworx router gives broad data coverage for almost any factual question, so core lookups are unlikely to dead-end. However, the FDIC-specific surface is thin (only five tools, missing branch/geography/history data), and the server's actual scope is so broad and mixed that no single domain is fully covered end-to-end.

Resources