Skip to main content
Glama

Rentcast

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs in output. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured and information-dense. It front-loads key trigger phrases and follows with specific details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly more concise, but 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers data sources, sorting, output format (paired data + URIs), and entity-type specifics. It could elaborate on exact output structure, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful details: for 'type', it explains what financial or drug data is fetched; for 'values', it provides examples and clarifies format (tickers, CIKs, drug names). This exceeds basic 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 explicitly lists trigger phrases and states the core function: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 entities. It specifies the two entity types and what data they return, clearly distinguishing from sequential single-pack 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 gives explicit preference over sequential lookups and provides example queries. However, it does not clearly state limitations or when not to use the tool (e.g., for single entity lookups or more than 5 entities).

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

All Rentcast 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlapping function sets (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, multiple ask/research tools) could cause confusion. However, descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is mostly consistent with snake_case and verb+noun patterns, but a few tools start with nouns (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

At 32 tools, the server feels heavy and covers many disparate domains. While each tool has its place, the high count strains coherence.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name 'Rentcast', only two tools relate to rental data. The rest cover unrelated domains, leaving a major gap for the intended primary purpose.

Resources