Skip to main content
Glama

Macro Snapshot

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/clinicaltrials for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of citation URIs. No contradiction 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 relatively long but front-loaded with example queries and key guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, though the last sentence about replacing 8–15 lookups is somewhat redundant. It could be slightly condensed but remains efficient for the complexity.

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 has 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains return values ('paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity') and sorting behavior. It also notes the tool's efficiency improvement, making it complete for agent understanding.

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 descriptions. The description adds concrete examples (e.g., '["AAPL","MSFT"]' for companies, '["ozempic","mounjaro"]' for drugs) and clarifies the meaning of the 'type' parameter beyond the enum. This adds value beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. It provides example queries like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies', making the purpose crystal clear. It also distinguishes from sequential single-lookups.

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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and quantifies the efficiency gain ('Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups'). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and identifies alternatives (entity_profile).

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

All Macro Snapshot 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy heavily overlapping space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta version explicitly noted as currently identical to the stable one. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research and macro_snapshot/indicator further blur boundaries, so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong entry point despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_first or domain_prefix pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, indicator, macro_snapshot, and recent_alerts use noun phrases, but the style is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the surface is heavy and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers many domains, several tools are near-duplicates or conveniences (ask_pipeworx_beta, scan_competitor_ai_presence, indicator) that could be consolidated.

Completeness5/5

For its apparent scope—structured data Q&A, grounded research, entity comparison, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory—the tool set covers the full lifecycle: query, ground, verify, research, compare, monitor, subscribe, alert, and manage state. There are no obvious dead ends; even supporting workflows like discover_tools and suggest_questions are provided.

Resources