Skip to main content
Glama

Geonet Nz

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of citation URIs. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense with information but well-organized, using bullet points for clarity. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value, so it earns a high score.

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, the description explains the return format (paired data + citation URIs) and covers both entity types comprehensively. It replaces the need for separate output schema documentation.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context: explains the enum values for type, and for values clarifies acceptable formats (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names) with examples. Goes beyond the schema 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 a single call. It provides specific trigger phrases ('X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups and sibling tools like entity_profile.

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?

The description explicitly advises preferring this tool over sequential lookups, gives clear usage patterns (trigger phrases), and explains the differences between company and drug entity types. It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool.

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

All Geonet Nz 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are deliberately near-identical variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) or have overlapping routing/query purposes (deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The Polymarket cluster also has five tools that all surface 'edges' or 'arbitrage' with only subtle differences. Only the three GeoNet tools and the memory trio are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant style is snake_case, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, verb/noun patterns vary widely across the set: some tools begin with verbs (get_quake, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, volcano_alerts, recent_changes), and some are plain nouns (polymarket_arbitrage). Readable but not a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 'heavy' threshold, and the server is named 'Geonet Nz' while only 3 of its 34 tools relate to GeoNet. The overwhelming majority are Pipeworx/data/prediction-market tools, making the server's scope massively broader than its name implies. The count itself is not unreasonable for the actual feature sprawl, but it is inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

Taking the real scope as 'general authoritative data research + memory + subscriptions + a little GeoNet', the surface is quite complete: query entry points, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, monitoring subscriptions, memory persistence, and feedback are all present. The GeoNet-specific subset is also adequate (get one, list recent, volcano alerts). Minor gaps exist, like no general GeoNet station/well data or subscription editing, but nothing causes dead ends.

Resources