Skip to main content
Glama

Worldbank Poverty

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description reveals it pulls latest SEC filings for companies (handling fiscal year differences) and FAERS/FDA/trial data for drugs, plus includes citation URIs in output.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with examples and explicit notes. Could be slightly more concise but effectively communicates key usage and behavior.

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 no output schema, the description fully describes the output (paired data + citation URIs) and covers all necessary behavioral details for proper invocation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds practical examples (e.g., tickers for companies, drug names) and clarifies constraints (2-5 items).

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 entities (companies or drugs), includes example queries ('X vs Y', 'rank these companies'), 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly advises 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and explains when to use each type (company vs drug) with specific data sources and sorting behavior.

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

All Worldbank Poverty 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all route to the same data sources. Additionally, the server includes unrelated meta-tools (remember/recall/forget, generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback) that have no clear boundaries with the poverty data tools, and betting tools that seem out of place. The core poverty tools (get_poverty, get_poverty_regional, list_reference) are distinct, but the rest creates significant confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of styles: some use snake_case (get_poverty, list_reference, suggest_questions), some use camelCase (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence), and others are single words (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming pattern is highly inconsistent, making it hard to predict related tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a 'Worldbank Poverty' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to poverty (Polymarket betting, AI marketing, npm package checks, LLM visibility). The core poverty functionality could be served by 3-5 tools, but instead the server includes dozens of extra tools from a generic data platform, making the count inappropriate for the stated domain.

Completeness4/5

For the poverty data domain, the tool surface is actually quite complete: get_poverty for country-level data, get_poverty_regional for aggregations, and list_reference for metadata. The only minor gap is a lack of a tool for comparing poverty across countries directly, but that is easy to work around by calling get_poverty multiple times. The extra meta-tools do not affect poverty data completeness.

Resources