Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Form D

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral details: correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured, front-loading purpose with example queries and layering details logically. Each sentence adds value, though slight trimming could improve conciseness without losing information.

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 two parameters, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage context, data sources, edge cases, sorting, return format, and efficiency benefits, leaving no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches both parameters: explains what each type pulls (revenue/net income for company; adverse events/drug approvals for drug) and provides concrete examples (tickers, drug names). It also clarifies the valid range and format for the 'values' array.

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's function: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It specifies the data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs) and explicitly distinguishes from sequential single-entity lookups, which are common among sibling tools 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 example queries ('Compare X and Y', 'rank these companies') and strong guidance to prefer this tool over sequential lookups, stating it replaces 8-15 lookups. It also specifies constraints (2-5 entities, type required) and implies when not to use (single entity lookups).

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

All Sec Form D 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions to data sources with minor differences. Form D tools and meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe). However, there are minor deviations like bet_research and deep_research without clear verbs, and the ask_pipeworx variants use irregular suffixes.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the server is over-scoped, including many utility and meta-tools (remember, recall, forget, list_subscriptions) that inflate the count beyond the core domain (SEC Form D and data lookups). A more focused set of 10-15 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very broad range of data sources and actions, including SEC filings, prediction markets, entity profiling, and AI visibility. However, the completeness is uneven; for example, there are many Form D tools but few for other SEC forms, and some areas like weather or clinical trials are only accessible via ask_pipeworx.

Resources