Skip to main content
Glama

Food Feeds

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses data sources for each type (SEC EDGAR/XBRL 10-K data; FAERS/FDA/trial counts), mentions correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years (AAPL Sep, NVDA Jan), explains sorting by primary metric, and states the output includes paired data plus citation URIs. This is rich behavioral context.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with user intent phrases and then covering operational details. Every sentence adds value, but it is somewhat long and could be slightly tightened. It is still front-loaded and organized effectively.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, data sources, sorting, and output highlights (paired data + citation URIs). It lacks a precise output format description or error handling details, but it is nearly complete for its complexity.

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?

The description adds significant meaning to the 'type' parameter by explaining exactly what data each enum value retrieves (10-K metrics vs adverse-event/trial counts). It also clarifies 'values' by distinguishing tickers/CIKs from drug names with examples, enriching the schema's basic descriptions.

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's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It includes specific trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies', and explicitly distinguishes it from sequential single-pack 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?

Provides explicit usage triggers ('Compare X and Y', 'which is bigger', 'head to head'), states the entity count range (2–5), and gives a strong preference directive: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' This clearly tells when to use this tool over alternatives.

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

All Food Feeds 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping functionality (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the set includes both food-specific feeds and general data tools without clear separation. Distinguishing between them, especially for an agent, would be difficult.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (list_feeds, read_feed), others are lowercase with underscores (ai_visibility_check), and many are multi-word without clear structure (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is high, and most tools are unrelated to the server's stated purpose of 'Food Feeds'. The inclusion of general-purpose Pipeworx tools (e.g., deep_research, entity_profile, polymarket tools) makes the set bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the food feeds domain, only three tools (list_feeds, read_feed, fetch_feed) are relevant, which is incomplete. The server lacks tools for searching, subscribing, or managing feeds. The presence of many unrelated tools does not compensate for this gap.

Resources