Skip to main content
Glama

Wiktionary

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral details: for companies, it pulls latest 10-K revenue/net income/cash/debt with off-calendar handling; for drugs, FAERS counts; results are sorted by primary metric; returns citation URIs. This provides useful context beyond 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 a single paragraph that efficiently packs multiple trigger phrases, use-case guidance, data source details, and output format. It's front-loaded with trigger phrases. Could be slightly more structured but is not overly verbose.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, what data it retrieves, how results are sorted, and the type of citations returned. No critical gaps are evident.

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 schema already provides enum descriptions and constraints. The description adds context for the 'values' parameter: clarifies that for companies it expects tickers/CIKs and for drugs it expects drug names, and implicitly explains the effect of 'type'. This adds value beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs like 'compare' and 'side-by-side comparison' and clearly identifies the resource (companies or drugs). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces up to 15 sequential lookups, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and provides trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger', etc. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Wiktionary 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The toolset is overwhelmingly fragmented: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical entry points; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk heavily overlap; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence cover the same task. The five actual Wiktionary tools are distinct but are lost among dozens of unrelated research and prediction-market tools, making selection highly ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and several logical prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_) create local patterns. However, the naming mixes noun-style commands (definition, etymology, pronunciations, summary) with verb-style commands (search, remember, forget, validate_claim), and no consistent verb_noun convention carries across the whole set.

Tool Count1/5

36 tools is already heavy, but the deeper problem is that only 5 tools actually belong to a Wiktionary server while 31 tools serve unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and marketing-audit functions. The count is wildly inappropriate for the declared server purpose.

Completeness2/5

The Wiktionary-relevant tools cover basic word lookup—search, summary, definition, etymology, pronunciations—but omit common dictionary operations like translations, usage examples, inflected forms, or random entries. The non-Wiktionary majority does not fill these gaps; it just makes the surface area incoherent and hard to reason about.

Resources