Skip to main content
Glama

Fmp

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds concrete behavioral details: pulls LATEST 10-K revenue/net income/cash/long-term debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS counts for drugs, off-calendar fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence serves a purpose: trigger phrases, tool capability, type-specific data, sorting behavior, output format. It is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains the output shape (paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs), covers edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years), and gives entity count limits. Given the moderate complexity, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with enums and descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description enhances meaning by specifying what type='company' vs 'drug' actually retrieves and provides examples like AAPL Sep, NVDA Jan to illustrate 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 identifies the tool as side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call, with concrete trigger phrases. It distinguishes from sibling tools like balance_sheet or income_statement by explicitly stating 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.'

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance with examples like 'Compare X and Y' and 'rank these companies', and states ALWAYS PREFER over sequential lookups. It also notes that it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups, indicating when this tool is more efficient.

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

All Fmp 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

C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap in purpose: quote/quote_short/historical_price/intraday for price data; balance_sheet/income_statement/cash_flow for financials; search_symbol/search_name/discover_tools for lookup; and a cluster of Pipeworx routers (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) with unclear boundaries. Agents will frequently select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case, but naming conventions vary widely: noun phrases (balance_sheet, entity_profile), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), verb+noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), and adjective+noun (historical_price, recent_alerts). No single pattern dominates, making it harder to guess tool names.

Tool Count2/5

55 tools is excessive for a server labeled 'Fmp'. The core financial data tools are perhaps 20-25, while the rest are unrelated: memory utilities, prediction market analyzers, web scraping, and meta-routing tools. This bloated set dilutes the server's purpose and burdens the agent with irrelevant options.

Completeness2/5

For the declared domain (FMP financials), the set covers the main statements but lacks tools like segment data, insider trades (listed as paid), or ownership details (also paid). Conversely, it includes many tools for prediction markets and general data retrieval that don't belong here, creating a mismatch between server name and actual capability.

Resources