Skip to main content
Glama

Statcan

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorted results, and citation URIs.

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 a single paragraph containing all necessary information efficiently. The initial list of example queries adds helpful context but slightly reduces conciseness; overall, the structure is effective.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies return format (paired data + citation URIs). It covers edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years) and provides complete context for agent usage.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the data pulled per type, input formats (tickers/CIKs vs. drug names), and result sorting.

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 purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It includes example queries and specific data sources per entity type, and distinguishes itself from 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 recommends preferring this tool over sequential single-pack lookups for comparisons. It provides input format guidance and notes the replacement of 8–15 sequential calls, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All Statcan 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 near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with an extra extraction pass, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx overlap for broad questions. The prediction-market tools and the StatCan series/cube/indicator tools also have fuzzy boundaries despite their detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names consistently use snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe) with domain-prefixed noun-first names (statcan_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and one-off names like ai_visibility_check and generate_llms_txt. The domain prefixes help navigation, but there is no single predictable pattern and the ask_pipeworx_* suffix variants break the prefix convention.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold, and the server named Statcan carries only 8 StatCan-specific tools alongside general Pipeworx routing, prediction-market analysis, AI visibility, dependency scanning, memory, and subscription features. This feels like several servers merged into one rather than a well-scoped StatCan interface.

Completeness4/5

Within the apparent StatCan data-access scope, the surface is solid: listing cubes, metadata, cube data, vector series, headline indicators, CSV URLs, and change detection cover the core workflows. The broader Pipeworx/analysis layers also include discovery, grounded lookups, entity resolution, validation, subscriptions, and memory, with only minor gaps like server-side StatCan search and no way to execute on prediction-market signals.

Resources