Skip to main content
Glama

Foodish

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context: pulls from specific external sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS, FDA, trials), handles off-calendar fiscal years, and returns sorted results with citation URIs. No contradictions, but could mention update frequency or rate limits.

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?

One concise paragraph packed with crucial information. Starts with user-facing example phrases for intent recognition, then summary, usage preference, per-type details, sorting behavior, and efficiency claim. No redundant sentences.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data sources, constraints, sorting, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). It also addresses edge cases like off-calendar fiscal years. Lacks detail on response structure but is sufficient for most use cases.

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 descriptions. Description enriches each parameter: for 'type' it explains what data each variant retrieves; for 'values' it gives format examples (tickers/CIKs, drug names) and explicitly states min and max constraints. This goes well 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 clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with examples of user intents. It specifies data sources for each type and is easily distinguishable from sibling tool 'entity_profile' which handles 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and provides natural language examples that trigger usage. It also notes constraints (2-5 entities) and differentiates from single-entity lookups.

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

All Foodish 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that differentiate between similar-sounding tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The Polymarket-related tools each focus on a specific aspect (arbitrage, edges, tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread), and memory/subscription tools are neatly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern with underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity). However, there is some inconsistency: single-word names like 'forget' and 'random' mix with multi-word names, and a few names use different structures (e.g., bet_research as noun_noun, random_by_category as adjective_preposition).

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering a broad range of functionalities from data queries to betting and memory. While the number might be justified by the platform's scope, it feels heavy, and the server name 'Foodish' suggests a narrower food-focused purpose, creating a mismatch.

Completeness4/5

As a general data platform, the tool set is comprehensive, covering queries, research, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and various analytical tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct editing or upload capabilities), but the core workflows are well-supported. However, the server name 'Foodish' implies food-related tools, which are minimal, so completeness relative to the name is poor.

Resources