Skip to main content
Glama

Idf Events

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: it details data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. This fully discloses what the tool does and how it behaves without contradicting the readOnlyHint or other 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 well-structured with examples and priorities, but it is slightly lengthy (around 300 characters). Every sentence earns its place, but a minor trim could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources, sorting, citations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers usage, data source details, and output characteristics even without an output schema, making it self-sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant meaning: it explains that for company type, values should be tickers/CIKs, and for drug type, names. It also clarifies what data is pulled for each type, which is beyond the schema. This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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 clear action verbs like 'side-by-side comparison' and specifies the resource (companies or drugs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entity_profile by explicitly noting it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing strong when-to-use guidance. It also lists trigger phrases ('compare X and Y', 'rank these companies') and contrasts with alternatives, making the usage context extremely clear.

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

All Idf Events 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple Polymarket analysis tools, and several entity-focused tools). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool for tasks like querying data or analyzing prediction markets.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). A few names like ai_visibility_check are slightly less conventional, but overall the naming is consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools covering a broad range of data services, the count is on the high side but still manageable. However, the server name 'Idf Events' is misleading, as only one tool relates to events in Paris.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for the Pipeworx platform: data querying, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, but most user needs are addressed.

Resources