Skip to main content
Glama

Openrouter

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds rich behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), specific financial metrics, off-calendar fiscal year handling, sorted results, and citation URIs. This fully informs the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (about 6 lines) yet densely informative. Every sentence adds value: synonyms for natural language, efficiency claim, entity-specific details, and output format. No redundant or missing information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes return value (paired data + citation URIs). It covers both entity types, explains sorting by primary metric, and highlights efficiency. For a 2-param tool with simple schema, this is fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with enums and descriptions. The description adds context by linking type to entity behavior (company vs drug), examples (tickers/CIKs, drug names), and constraints (minItems 2, maxItems 5). It enhances understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It includes specific verb phrases ('Compare X and Y', 'rank these companies') and distinguishes from sequential lookups, leaving no ambiguity.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also gives example natural language triggers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for single entity lookups), but the preference is strong enough.

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

All Openrouter 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and the polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, and polymarket_fill_risk tools all orbit market-opportunity analysis from slightly different angles. The descriptions are unusually detailed and often say when to prefer one tool over another, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_models, get_model, resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency), with predictable domain prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*. A few noun-first names like entity_profile, bet_research, and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly, but the overall convention is readable and coherent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' range, especially for a server named Openrouter that actually spans several unrelated domains: model catalog, Pipeworx data retrieval, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, and website tooling. Many individual tools are justified, but the set is overstuffed and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

Each sub-domain is reasonably covered: model catalog has list/get/compare, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and Pipeworx querying has multiple modes plus discovery. However, a server named Openrouter exposes no way to actually run completions or route requests through OpenRouter, and the unrelated bundled domains make the overall surface feel scattered rather than complete.

Resources