Skip to main content
Glama

superhero

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open world), the description discloses substantive behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, return of paired data with citation URIs, and a single parallel call that replaces 8–15 lookups. This greatly exceeds the minimal safety profile provided by 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 dense but every sentence earns its place—trigger phrases, data sources, sorting behavior, and efficiency benefit. It is front-loaded with the most important usage instructions ('ALWAYS PREFER'), making it easy to scan. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (paired data + citation URIs), sorting behavior, and the parallel-call efficiency. It also handles both entity types and their data specifics, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect and how to invoke the tool.

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 adds significant semantic detail: it explains exactly what data each 'type' retrieves (10-K financials for companies, adverse-event/trial counts for drugs) and clarifies the values parameter examples. This goes well beyond the schema's basic field descriptions, enriching the agent's understanding of expected inputs and outputs.

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 comparisons of 2–5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. It includes specific trigger phrases and distinguishes itself from sequential single-entity lookups, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to 'ALWAYS PREFER' this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, providing clear when-to-use context. It also gives query examples and type-specific data sources, but it does not name alternative tools explicitly or discuss when not to use it beyond the sequential vs. parallel distinction.

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

All superhero 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by a huge number of unrelated tools for data lookup (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.), with only 4 superhero-specific tools. Many tools serve overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, suggest_questions all handle general queries), making it very difficult for an agent to distinguish the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: some tools use CamelCase (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools), others use snake_case (get_hero, list_all, compare_entities), and some use long descriptive phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This mixture makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is far too large for a server named 'superhero'. Most tools are unrelated to superheroes, making the set seem bloated and misaligned with the server's stated purpose. A focused superhero server would need at most 10 tools.

Completeness1/5

For the superhero domain, the tool set is severely incomplete: only basic retrieval of heroes and powerstats, with no search, filtering, creation, comparison, or battle mechanisms. For the broader data access domain it is more complete, but that is not the server's name.

Resources