Skip to main content
Glama

Osv

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: details data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), explains handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and mentions returns of paired data with citation URIs. No contradiction with readOnly/ idempotent 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 slightly long but well-structured with front-loaded key phrases and examples. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition of 'comparison' could be tightened. Still effective.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately covers return format (paired data + citation URIs). Provides sufficient context for a tool that handles two entity types with different data sources and constraints (2-5 items).

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% with both parameters described. Description enriches by explaining the meaning of 'type' values (company vs drug) and providing concrete examples for 'values' (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names for drug).

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 the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs, differentiating it from single-entity tools like entity_profile. Includes specific use-case examples such as 'compare X and Y' and 'rank these companies'.

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 advises to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and provides example queries. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the general preference statement.

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

All Osv 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, as are the suite of polymarket_* tools. While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may struggle to choose the correct one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but they mix verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim) with noun-first patterns (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback). This inconsistency makes it harder to guess tool names by convention.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a platform covering vulnerability queries, data retrieval, prediction markets, and utilities. However, the server name 'Osv' suggests a narrow focus, making the large count feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: querying data, comparing entities, managing user data, monitoring subscriptions, and even onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for updating user profiles), but overall it is well-rounded for its domain.

Resources