Skip to main content
Glama

Feodotracker

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

A4.6/5.0
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 enhances transparency by detailing data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. No contradiction.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with examples and bullet points. Every sentence adds value (usage guidance, data sources, behavior). Could be slightly more concise but still effective.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs, data sources, sorting, and output format (paired data + citation URIs). It covers what the agent needs to know to use the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context: explains that values for company are tickers/CIKs, for drug are names, and notes max/min items. This goes beyond the schema by explaining data sources and type behavior.

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, with example queries like 'compare X and Y'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile by explicitly mentioning it replaces sequential single-entity 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?

The description explicitly advises to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and gives concrete query examples. It does not list when not to use it, but the context makes the scope clear.

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

All Feodotracker 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

Multiple tools occupy the same conceptual space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all answer 'what can this server do' or 'look this up' in overlapping ways. The Polymarket suite (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) also create boundary confusion despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mixed bag: some tools are imperative verbs (check_ip, forget, remember, validate_claim), some are bare nouns or adjectives (list, recent, aggressive), and many are noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). No consistent verb_noun or domain-prefix pattern holds across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly named Feodotracker, whose core blocklist surface is only four tools (list, recent, aggressive, check_ip). The rest is a sprawling collection of unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscription, and utility features that would be better split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The core blocklist domain is minimally covered: you can list, filter by family/status, check an IP, and see recent additions, which covers basic read-only use. However, there are notable gaps and dead ends, such as no historical lookup beyond recent hours and no per-IP detail beyond membership, while the bundled Pipeworx/Polymarket features are thorough but make the overall surface feel scattershot.

Resources