Skip to main content
Glama

Gdelt

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by detailing data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, 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?

Description is relatively long but front-loaded with query examples; each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy ('side-by-side', 'one parallel call') but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, description explains return format (paired data, citation URIs, sorted by primary metric) and covers entity-specific behavior. Completely adequate for agent invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. Description adds examples of valid values (tickers or drug names) and constraints (2-5 items), enhancing usability.

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 is for side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call, with examples of queries like 'compare X and Y'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it should replace 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?

Explicitly says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing clear when-to-use. No when-not-to-use stated, but the context is sufficient.

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

All Gdelt 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions plus entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/validate_claim overlap in purpose. An agent selecting among the five ask/deep-research variants or six Polymarket tools will frequently need to read lengthy descriptions to avoid picking the wrong one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and clear verb_noun phrases like search_articles, resolve_entity, and validate_claim, with helpful families like polymarket_* and timeline_*. However, several tools are bare noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, tone_distribution), and the memory trio (remember/recall/forget) breaks the domain-prefix pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server nominally about GDELT; much of the surface is meta/utility tooling (diagnostics, memory, discovery, subscriptions) rather than core news retrieval. Several tools could be consolidated, such as ask_pipeworx_beta and the multiple Polymarket edge/arb/research variants.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data/news/prediction-market scope, the surface is quite complete: GDELT search, volume, tone, and distribution are covered, along with entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, claim verification, and trade-side analytics. Minor gaps exist, such as no full-text article fetch or direct GDELT raw-event export, but agents can mostly work around them.

Resources