Skip to main content
Glama

Oeis

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds details: parallel call, correct fiscal year handling, sorted results, and citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 key examples and instructions. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Essentially well-structured.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format: paired data and citation URIs. Adequate for a 2-parameter tool with no nested objects.

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%, but description adds value with concrete examples (e.g., 'AAPL','MSFT' for companies) and explains how off-calendar years are handled, going 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 uses specific verbs like 'side-by-side comparison' and 'pulls', clearly stating it compares 2-5 entities of type company or drug. It distinguishes from sequential lookups by stating it replaces 8-15 sequential calls.

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 provides explicit when-to-use cues with example queries and states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups'. It does not explicitly mention exclusions, but the context is clear.

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

All Oeis 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap, especially among ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, ask_pipeworx_beta) and prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research). While descriptions help distinguish them, the boundaries are somewhat fuzzy.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent. Some tools use verb_noun (search_sequence, compare_entities), others use noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), and some have prefixes (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) while others do not (remember, forget). There is no uniform pattern, which reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

The server name 'Oeis' suggests a focus on integer sequences, but only 2 of 33 tools are OEIS-related. The remaining tools cover a vast array of unrelated domains (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This mismatch between name and scope makes the tool count feel excessive and poorly scoped.

Completeness4/5

Within the broad domains covered, the tool surface is quite complete. For memory, there are remember/recall/forget; for subscriptions, subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts; for data retrieval, multiple entry points. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of OEIS sequence contribution tools, but overall the set is well-rounded.

Resources