Skip to main content
Glama

Openfema

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the specific data pulled (e.g., revenue, net income, adverse-event counts), how off-calendar fiscal years are handled, and result sorting by primary metric. 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 a single cohesive paragraph that effectively front-loads the core purpose ('Compare X and Y') and then elaborates on specifics. Each sentence adds value, though minor restructuring could improve scanability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers input and behavior well, it omits explicit detail about the output structure beyond 'paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs.' Without an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the exact fields returned or format.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the parameter meanings by providing concrete examples (tickers vs drug names) and value ranges. It goes beyond schema by explaining what data is retrieved per type.

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 comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs, specifying data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs). It distinguishes itself from sequential single-entity lookups with the phrase 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack 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 explicitly advises using this tool over sequential lookups and provides trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies.' It specifies entity types and cardinality (2-5), leaving no ambiguity about when to apply.

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

All Openfema 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or heavily overlapping: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover grounded-answer territory. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) also has fuzzy boundaries that would require careful reading to differentiate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes several conventions: verb_noun (query_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, disaster_declarations, deep_research), and branded prefixes (pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Some tools use scan_, some ask_, some list_, with no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ 'too many' threshold and carries a lot of surface area. The server is named Openfema, yet only about three tools actually relate to FEMA data, making the count feel inflated relative to the stated name and purpose.

Completeness4/5

For its actual broad domain—a general structured-data research gateway—the surface is quite comprehensive: discovery, single lookups, grounded verification, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct OpenFEMA dataset metadata beyond list_datasets, and some tools require accounts/paywalls), but agents can generally accomplish the intended workflows.

Resources