Skip to main content
Glama

Hnb Hr

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds substantial behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorted results by primary metric, and inclusion of 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?

Description is somewhat long but each sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with query examples, making purpose instantly clear. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but current structure is 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 has 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers input semantics, data sources, and behavioral details. It mentions return format (paired data + citation URIs) but lacks detailed structure of output. Sufficient for effective use.

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%, but description adds meaning: for 'type' enum it explains the data pulled (financial vs adverse events), for 'values' it specifies tickers/CIKs for companies and names for drugs, and reinforces min/max constraints. Goes 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs, with specific verb phrases like 'Compare X and Y' and 'head to head'. It distinguishes from siblings such as entity_profile by emphasizing parallel lookup.

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 when comparing entities', providing strong usage guidance. It also explains when each type (company vs drug) is appropriate, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for single entity lookups), though implied.

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

All Hnb Hr 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx), and deep_research and validate_claim also overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The Polymarket tools are more distinct, but the query family creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix leading verbs (ask_, compare_, resolve_, scan_) with leading nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, hnb_currency_rate) and there are multiple subfamily prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, hnb_*). All are snake_case, but no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern is followed.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the server name ('Hnb Hr') implies a narrow Croatian banking scope while the majority of tools are for a broad data research platform. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) inflate the count beyond what the apparent purpose needs.

Completeness3/5

The HNB currency functionality is complete (single and all rates, historical and latest), and the broader data platform offers good coverage via the ask_pipeworx router, subscriptions, and memory tools. However, there are gaps (no direct HNB news or historical archive tool, patents soft-fail, and out-of-domain tools like generate_llms_txt), and the mismatch between server name and content leaves the surface feeling incomplete.

Resources