Skip to main content
Glama

Property Records

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description reveals rich behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting behavior by primary metric, and output structure (paired data + citation URIs). This far exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 dense but every sentence carries weight: trigger phrases, core function, usage preference, data source details, sorting, and output. It front-loads the most actionable information and avoids fluff, making it highly efficient despite 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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers context, input semantics, behavior, edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years), and output format, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by enumerating exactly what data each type pulls (e.g., 10-K revenue/net income/cash/debt for companies, adverse-event/approval/trial counts for drugs). It also clarifies value formats (tickers/CIKs vs. drug names), enhancing the schema's basic examples.

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 defines the tool as a side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call, with explicit trigger phrases ("X vs Y", "which is bigger") and resource types. It also distinguishes from alternatives by stating it replaces 8-15 sequential single-pack lookups, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs "ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities," providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also differentiates company vs. drug scenarios and notes sorting by primary metric, giving the agent concrete selection criteria.

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

All Property Records 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants of the same router, and there are six polymarket-related tools with overlapping arb/edge/fill-risk purposes. Property-specific tools are distinct but buried among many unrelated meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others noun_verb (property_lookup), and many are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear systematic convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server labeled 'Property Records'—only two tools (property_lookup, property_coverage) actually serve that purpose. The rest belong to unrelated domains (general data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a property-records server, the surface is incomplete: it only provides lookup plus a coverage matrix, with no other property-related operations (e.g., tax history, comparable sales) and no way to handle unsupported jurisdictions beyond a simple flag. The unrelated tools do not contribute to the stated domain, leaving the core purpose thinly covered.

Resources