Skip to main content
Glama

Packagephobia

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses key behaviors: data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. This adds significant context.

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 somewhat long but well-structured: starts with example queries, then explanation, type-specific details, and result format. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Could be trimmed slightly, but remains efficient.

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 and moderate complexity (two entity types, multiple metrics), the description covers data sources, sorting, and citation URIs. It also notes efficiency gains. Lacks exact output format, but the 'paired data' mention is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining what each type pulls (company financials vs drug data), giving examples for values (tickers/CIKs or drug names), and clarifying constraints (2-5 items).

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 compares 2-5 companies or drugs side-by-side in one parallel call, with specific examples like 'compare X and Y'. It distinguishes from sequential single-entity lookups, which are common sibling tools such as 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly advises 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and provides trigger examples. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria (e.g., for >5 entities), but the guidance is strong and clear.

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

All Packagephobia 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 near-overlapping query tools exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently described as identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) also heavily overlap and rely on lengthy descriptions to keep them apart.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case and generally readable, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entity, suggest_questions), noun_verb (bet_research, ai_visibility_check), noun_adj (pipeworx_trending, recent_changes), and bare verbs (size, forget, recall) all appear. Variant suffixes like ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded add further unpredictability.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools exceeds the 'too many' threshold and spans unrelated domains: package size, general data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscription management. The set would feel more coherent at roughly half the count, with several query and Polymarket tools consolidated.

Completeness3/5

For the dominant data-research purpose, the surface is reasonably complete: querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and discovery are all covered. However, the server's stated identity ('Packagephobia') is nearly absent—only `size` and `scan_dependency` address package sizing—so the namesake domain is thin while unrelated domains are overbuilt.

Resources