Skip to main content
Glama

Nato

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"]).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorted results, and 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 front-loaded with example queries and efficiently conveys key information. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. A minor reduction in length could still maintain 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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its inputs, behavior, and output format (paired data + citation URIs). It is complete 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 the description adds significant meaning: it explains what each type pulls (company: specific financial metrics; drug: specific counts) and how results are sorted. This goes well beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 specific verbs ('compare', 'side-by-side comparison') and clearly identifies the resource (2-5 companies or drugs) and action. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating preference over sequential single-pack lookups, which differentiates from tools like entity_profile.

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 this tool ('for comparing entities', 'ALWAYS PREFER') and provides context on entity types and data sources. It implies when not to use (for single lookups) through the sibling context and by emphasizing efficiency gains.

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

All Nato 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

Multiple tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-variants, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in purpose. Descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other, but an agent must read very long definitions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is consistently snake_case with helpful domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, and scan_*. Deviations such as deep_research, entity_profile, recent_alerts, and the bare verbs remember/recall/forget break a strict verb_noun pattern but remain predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is heavy for one server, and several groups could plausibly be consolidated. However, the platform spans data lookup, research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and utilities, so the breadth partially justifies the count.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity comparison, claim validation, prediction-market analysis, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and discovery. There are no obvious dead ends, and gaps are minor or workaroundable.

Resources