Skip to main content
Glama

Insee

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds valuable behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and sorting by primary metric. No contradictions with 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 trigger phrases and efficiently conveys purpose and usage. While slightly longer, every sentence adds value (examples, data sources, advantages). No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting behavior, and the benefit of replacing multiple lookups. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand input, behavior, and output expectations.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how 'values' should be formatted (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug) and that max is 5 items. It also clarifies the data returned per type, enhancing semantic understanding.

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 provides multiple example queries ('compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and clearly states it performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 entities. It explicitly distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups and sibling tools like entity_profile, making the 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states WHEN to use ('always prefer over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities') and provides alternative behavior for type='company' vs 'drug'. It gives clear usage context and implicitly excludes single-entity queries, guiding appropriate selection.

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

All Insee 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed, carve-out descriptions, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing core, with the beta version currently identical to the stable one. The Polymarket and company-research clusters are better differentiated, but the number of overlapping research/query entry points still creates real selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently snake_case and has coherent prefixes like ask_pipeworx_ and polymarket_, but it mixes verb_noun names (resolve_entity, scan_dependency, discover_tools) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_changes) and one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget). The naming is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold for too many tools and feels like a broad platform dump rather than a focused toolkit. Several utility, memory, and meta-discovery tools could reasonably live in separate servers, and the Insee name makes the breadth especially unfocused.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-research platform it actually exposes, the coverage is strong: general lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, subscriptions, and memory all have working lifecycles. The main gap is that some unrelated utilities like scan_dependency and generate_llms_txt feel tacked on rather than part of a missing core workflow.

Resources