Skip to main content
Glama

Producthunt

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: it details data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), explains handling of off-calendar fiscal years, notes sorting by primary metric, and mentions citation URIs. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that starts with example queries, clearly states purpose, and sequentially adds details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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, the description briefly mentions return value (paired data + citation URIs). For a complex multi-entity comparison tool, slightly more detail on output structure could help, but overall it is adequate.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining the format of values (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names) and why each parameter is used. This goes beyond the minimal 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, specifying data sources and metrics for each type. It distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile by emphasizing it replaces 8-15 sequential 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?

The description explicitly advises to 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and provides example query patterns. It implies alternatives (entity_profile for single entities) but does not explicitly list when not to use.

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

All Producthunt 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 tools are functionally near-identical: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly a duplicate of ask_pipeworx (descriptions say they 'currently match exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in answer-extraction mode. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on edge-finding and fill-risk, and ai_visibility_check duplicates scan_competitor_ai_presence's per-entity probing. Agents will frequently misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is consistently snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern (get_post, top_launches, subscribe, forget, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations exist where nouns lead (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts, bet_research), and polymarket_* names use a domain-prefix style rather than pure verb_noun, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is at the heavy end, and the count is badly mismatched to the server's stated identity: it is named 'Producthunt' yet only 2 of 33 tools (get_post, top_launches) are Product Hunt related — the rest are Pipeworx data lookup, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. The redundancy (duplicate ask_pipeworx_beta, overlapping polymarket tools) inflates the count without adding surface.

Completeness2/5

Judged against the Product Hunt domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: coverage is limited to list-top-launches and get-one-post, with no search, users, comments, votes, collections, or categories — and no way to act on Product Hunt data at all. As a general Pipeworx data platform the coverage is broader, but for the named purpose there are large gaps that will force agent failures.

Resources