Skip to main content
Glama

Tankerkoenig

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Entity Profile

entity_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Tell me about X" / "research Acme" / "brief me on Tesla" / "what does Apple do" / "company profile for Microsoft" / "give me the rundown on NVDA" / "everything you know about $TICKER" — full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view. Fans out across SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF and returns: cik + company_name; recent_filings (up to 5 with pipeworx://edgar/company/{cik}/filings/{accession} URIs); fundamentals (LATEST 10-K Revenues + NetIncomeLoss + Cash, sorted period_end DESC); patents (USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. Pass ticker "AAPL" or zero-padded CIK "0000320193" — names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you only have a name).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today; person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, read-only, non-destructive. Description adds substantial behavioral context: fans across multiple sources, specific data returned, patent soft-fail note, and constraints on input. No contradiction.

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?

Description is dense and front-loaded with example queries, but the structure is a single paragraph with internal bullets. All information is useful, though slight restructuring could improve readability for an agent.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, description fully explains tool's purpose, data sources, return structure, and limitations. Covers all needed context for correct invocation.

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%, and description adds value with examples ('AAPL', '0000320193'), reiterates constraints (only 'company', no names), and clarifies that names require resolve_entity first.

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?

Description identifies specific action: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' Provides example queries and lists data sources and returned fields, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like chaining 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states preference: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Also provides when-not-to-use: 'names not supported (use resolve_entity first if you only have a name).'

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

All Tankerkoenig 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

Multiple tools occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer research questions; polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage overlap heavily on prediction-market opportunities; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap on company research. The detailed descriptions help, but the clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a readable snake_case convention, many with verb_noun structure (resolve_entity, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, scan_dependency). Minor deviations exist: tankerkoenig_stations_nearby plural vs tankerkoenig_station_details/prices singular, plus noun-style names like pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending, but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and the problem is compounded by the server being named Tankerkoenig: only 3 of the 34 tools relate to German fuel prices while the other 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory/subscription toolkit. This is a sprawling, unfocused surface rather than a well-scoped set.

Completeness3/5

For the nominal Tankerkoenig domain, stations_nearby + station_details + prices cover core lookups, though station search by name and price history are missing. For the broader bundled data/prediction-market domain, coverage is extensive but has notable gaps such as no trade execution, no general web search, and several redundant access paths that complicate the surface.

Resources