Skip to main content
Glama

Opendosm My

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: results sorted by primary metric, citation URIs, fiscal year handling, replaces multiple lookups. 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?

Dense single paragraph front-loaded with examples, no fluff. Could be slightly better structured, but effectively conveys all necessary info.

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 no output schema, description fully explains return data (paired data, citation URIs, sorted by metric). Covers both entity types and data sources. Complete for intended use.

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 meaning with examples, explains data sources (SEC, FAERS), and clarifies array constraints. Exceeds baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with explicit trigger phrases and distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile. It specifies data sources per entity type.

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups', giving clear when-to-use guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use beyond schema constraints (max 5 entities).

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

All Opendosm My 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
Disambiguation3/5

The set includes three nearly-identical ask_pipeworx variants (base, beta, grounded) that differ only subtly, and deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx for multi-part queries. Several company/prediction tools also share adjacent purposes (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_edges), though detailed descriptions help. Overall, an agent could mis-select between these overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or consistent prefix pattern (opendosm_*, polymarket_*), and the ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent. However, a few are noun phrases (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, recent_alerts) and some verbs aren't uniform (list_datasets vs dataset_meta vs get_dataset). The mixture is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the typical focused server range and includes a clearly redundant experimental variant (ask_pipeworx_beta) plus many loosely-related utility functions (memory, subscriptions, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation). While the broad scope justifies some size, the count feels excessive for the 'Opendosm My' name, which suggests a narrower Malaysian-statistics focus.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent overarching goal of a multi-domain research/query platform, the surface is quite complete: data lookup, deep research, entity comparison, claim verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all covered. The Malaysian OpenDOSM component itself has list/meta/get lifecycle. Minor gaps (e.g., no direct dataset search beyond curated lists, no way to execute arbitrary Pipeworx tools directly) are workable.

Resources