Skip to main content
Glama

Wikiquote

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds extra behavioral context: it pulls from SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies and FAERS for drugs, handles off-calendar fiscal years correctly, sorts results by primary metric, and returns citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the essential purpose and trigger phrases, then provides concise details. Every sentence adds unique value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is efficient despite its length.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the output format (paired data + citation URIs) and sorting behavior. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but annotations cover safety. For a tool replacing many lookups, the context is sufficient.

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% and describes type and values clearly. The description adds meaning by explaining what each type pulls (e.g., latest 10-K data for companies, adverse-event counts for drugs), enhancing the schema's context. It doesn't just repeat schema info.

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 starts with natural language trigger phrases and clearly states 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call.' It distinguishes from sequential lookups and specifies what each entity type returns, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'entity_profile' for single entity lookups, which would strengthen the guidance further.

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

All Wikiquote 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes four Wikiquote tools with 31 unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, creating a confusing dual identity. Within the research tooling, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-synonyms, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk overlap heavily, making selection ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but patterns vary: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), some noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, quote_of_the_day), and several are bare verbs or nouns (search, summary, remember, quotes). Prefix groups like ask_pipeworx* and polymarket_* are consistent, but the overall convention is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named Wikiquote, as only 4 tools (quote_of_the_day, quotes, search, summary) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 form an unrelated general research and prediction-market toolkit, making the set feel bloated and off-scope for its stated name.

Completeness1/5

As a Wikiquote server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no random quote, page listing, author/topic browsing, or any write/update operations, and the few quotation tools are buried among unrelated functionality. The unrelated research tools may be internally rich, but they do not address the server's stated purpose.

Resources