Skip to main content
Glama

Openligadb

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: describes data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorted by primary metric, returns paired data + 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?

Description is dense but well-structured, front-loaded with example queries and key instructions. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers entity types, data sources, sorting, and return format (paired data + citations) despite no output schema. Provides enough context for correct usage.

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 examples and clarifies behavior (e.g., tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names, handling of fiscal years). Adds value beyond schema 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?

Description clearly states side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call, with example natural language queries. Distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it replaces 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to prefer over sequential lookups when comparing entities, and gives specific use cases (financials for companies, adverse events for drugs). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but 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 Openligadb 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions differentiating similar tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. However, some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, as both serve as universal routers with only minor routing improvements.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), others use lowercase single words (forget, recall), and some use camelCase (bet_research, deep_research). This mix of conventions makes the naming scheme unpredictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server covers a wide range of data sources, but the count feels slightly heavy for the apparent scope. Several tools serve meta-purposes (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or specialized functions (polymarket_arbitrage), adding to the complexity.

Completeness4/5

The tool set offers comprehensive coverage for financial, economic, drug, and news data, including comparison and grounding capabilities. However, the football-related tools are limited to German leagues, leaving a minor gap for other sports or regions.

Resources