Skip to main content
Glama

Overpass

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), the description reveals data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), fiscal-year handling (AAPL Sep, NVDA Jan), sorting by primary metric, and output format (paired data + citation URIs). These details give the agent a strong behavioral model.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading trigger phrases and usage guidance. Some redundancy (e.g., 'ALWAYS PREFER' and 'Replaces 8–15 lookups') exists, but every sentence adds useful information. It earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating returns (paired data + citation URIs), explaining data types, sorting behavior, and providing concrete examples. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds semantics for each type: company pulls 10-K metrics, drug pulls adverse-event/trial counts, and values are tickers/CIKs vs drug names. This enriches param meaning beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description opens with natural-language triggers and explicitly states 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call.' It names the operation (compare) and the resources (companies/drugs), distinguishing it from single-entity lookups like entity_profile.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' and lists example queries. It contrasts with alternative sequential lookups and notes the tool replaces 8–15 lookups, making the when-to-use decision clear.

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

All Overpass 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx trio (stable, beta, grounded) are near-identical variants, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in the edge-finding space. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect among these clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all snake_case and readable, but conventions vary: ask_pipeworx_* uses a prefix pattern, polymarket_* is consistent, yet others mix verbs (scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt) with nouns (entity_profile, resolve_entity). No single verb_noun pattern governs the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels like multiple servers merged into one: structured data routing, prediction markets, OSM, memory, subscriptions, and AI-visibility checks. The breadth is impressive but the count is heavy for a single tool surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface is notably complete for its blended domain: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe, data access has multiple router modes plus deep research and claim validation, and prediction markets have research, edge, arbitrage, fill-risk, and cross-venue tools. Minor gaps exist (no subscription update, no explicit reverse-geocoding tool), but core workflows are covered.

Resources