Skip to main content
Glama

Imei

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, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorted results, citation URIs, and efficiency claims—all beyond 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 front-loaded with example queries and is well-structured. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'replaces 8-15 sequential lookups' restates efficiency), but overall it is concise and informative.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately describes return data: paired results with sorted primary metric and citation URIs. It covers the main expectations for a comparison tool. However, it could be more explicit about the structure of the returned data.

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% with brief descriptions. The description enriches both parameters: explains type enum values with concrete data pulled (revenue, net income for company; adverse events for drug), clarifies values array constraints (2-5, tickers vs names), and adds nuance like fiscal-year handling for companies.

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 example queries. It distinguishes itself from single-entity tools like entity_profile and from sequential lookups, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly advises to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and provides examples of when to use it. However, it does not include explicit exclusions or alternative tools for non-comparison tasks.

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

All Imei 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The prediction-market cluster also has six tools whose distinctions require careful reading, making mis-selection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are lowercase snake_case and reasonably descriptive, but no consistent verb_noun pattern holds across the set. entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_imei are verbs, and the useful ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* prefixes are not applied server-wide.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for an agent to navigate efficiently, especially since the underlying data surface is already hidden behind ask_pipeworx and dozens more tools. The set spans data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, IMEI validation, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, making it feel like a grab bag rather than a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The main query/verify/research/monitor workflow is covered well: ask, grounded, deep research, claim validation, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory all exist, so common paths have few dead ends. However, the set is not a single coherent domain, and there is no direct fetch/read-record tool or prediction-market execution tool, leaving some reasonable follow-up actions implicit.

Resources