Skip to main content
Glama

Greynoise

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"]).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds specific behavioral details: pulls from SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs, handles fiscal year differences, sorts results, and returns citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads example queries and then provides structural details. While dense, it is efficient and every sentence adds value. Slight lack of formatting but still effective.

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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources, no output schema), the description adequately explains input parameters, data pulled, sorting, and output includes URIs. It does not detail exact output structure but covers what is needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: explains how 'type' determines data sources and provides examples for 'values' (tickers for companies, drug names). This helps the agent understand parameter semantics 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 uses specific trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y', 'which is bigger', and explicitly states it provides side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one call. It clearly distinguishes from sequential lookups and from 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 to 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' when comparing entities, and provides a list of query types that trigger this tool. It implicitly indicates when not to use (if not comparing multiple entities).

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

All Greynoise 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, creating a true duplicate entry point, and the prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all detect mispricings with heavily overlapping descriptions. The detailed docs help, but an agent choosing among these will frequently misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, subscribe) with noun-first names (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, ip_context, recent_changes) and bare verbs (remember, forget) without a unifying convention. Subfamilies are internally consistent (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, subscribe/unsubscribe), which keeps it readable, but there is no predictable server-wide pattern.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well into the too-many band, and several tools duplicate or wrap others: ask_pipeworx_beta is a redundant copy of ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check, and bet_research overlaps polymarket_edges/arbitrage. The broad scope justifies a large set, but it would be tighter and clearer around 20-24 tools.

Completeness4/5

For the domain the descriptions actually define (structured-data research, company intelligence, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory), coverage is strong with few dead ends: subscription and memory lifecycles are complete, and research has routing/grounded/deep modes. However, the server is named Greynoise while only ip_context serves that domain, and side tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency sit outside any core workflow.

Resources