Skip to main content
Glama

Octopus Energy

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals that it pulls LATEST 10-K data, sorts results by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. It also details internal processing differences between company and drug types.

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?

Description is densely informative with key guidance front-loaded (query examples, preference directive). Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Structure is clear: example usage, then explanation, then technical details.

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?

No output schema, but description sufficiently explains return behavior: sorted results, paired data per entity, citation URIs. Covers both entity types and special cases (off-calendar fiscal years). Adequately complete for a complex tool.

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 substantial meaning: explains what each 'type' value entails (company pulls financial data, drug pulls adverse event counts) and specifies input formats (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names for drugs) and constraints (2-5 items). This enriches the schema defaults.

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?

Description explicitly states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with clear query examples like 'Compare X and Y' and 'which is bigger'. It distinguishes from sequential single-entity lookups and sibling tools. The verb 'compare' and resource entities are concrete.

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?

Clear directive to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. Explains the data sources for each type (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs) and notes correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years, guiding appropriate invocation.

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

All Octopus Energy 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions and specific domains. However, there is potential for confusion between `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` (both route to data), and among the four polymarket tools, which could cause misselection if not read carefully.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: while all use snake_case, they mix verbs (`ask_`, `list_`, `bet_`, `scan_`), noun phrases (`entity_profile`, `product_details`, `recent_alerts`), and imperative verbs (`forget`, `remember`, `recall`). No single pattern is followed throughout, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server covers multiple domains (energy, general data, betting, memory, subscriptions) which feels heavy for a single server named 'Octopus Energy'. While each tool has a role, the scope is overly broad, and many tools are tangential to energy, suggesting the number could be reduced or better scoped.

Completeness3/5

For the energy domain, tools are present but only cover listing products and tariffs, missing account management or switching. For the broader domains (data, prediction markets), coverage is decent but lacks some expected features like browsing all available data sources or user profile management. The set is not fully comprehensive for any single purpose.

Resources