Skip to main content
Glama

H1b

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
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant detail beyond annotations: describes exact data pulled for each type (revenue, net income, cash, debt for companies; adverse events, approvals, trials for drugs), sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), and special handling (off-calendar fiscal years). Mentions sorting by primary metric and return format (paired data + citation URIs). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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 front-loaded with user triggers, then clear purpose, then detailed behavior. Every sentence adds value, though slightly long. Structured logically with type-specific details.

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?

Covers all aspects: input format, data sources, sorting, output format (paired data + citation URIs), and efficiency claim (replaces 8-15 lookups). No output schema, but description explains return values adequately.

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 enum and descriptions, but the description adds richer context: explains what each type pulls, gives concrete examples for values (tickers/CIKs for companies, names for drugs), and clarifies min/max items. Adds meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states it does side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs, with specific data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS/FDA trials for drugs). It uses natural language triggers ('X vs Y', 'compare') and differentiates from single-entity lookups 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 Guidelines4/5

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' and gives examples of when to use. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use, but the examples and sibling context provide sufficient guidance.

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

All H1b 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several overlapping clusters exist: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all handle research questions, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for trading opportunities, and discover_tools/suggest_questions serve similar discovery purposes. The long, use-case-specific descriptions help, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun or noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions, h1b_salary), which is fairly consistent. However, there are deviations: bare verbs like recall/remember/forget/subscribe, noun-only phrases like entity_profile and recent_changes, and the ask_pipeworx_beta suffix variant break the pattern slightly.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold, and the server is named 'H1b' while only 3 of the 34 tools relate to H-1B data. The rest is a sprawling mix of data research, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency — a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness4/5

As a de facto Pipeworx research platform, the surface is nearly complete: open-ended queries, grounded evidence mode, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. The H-1B sub-domain covers employer, salary, and top-sponsor lookups, though the mention of green cards is a small mismatch since only LCA data is provided.

Resources