Skip to main content
Glama

Buzzword Density

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. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). The description adds behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting, and citation URIs, which enrich 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 is information-dense but well-organized, starting with trigger phrases and purpose, then entity details. It is concise yet comprehensive, though could be slightly improved by splitting into shorter sentences.

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, the description fully covers what the tool does: data retrieved (financial metrics for companies, adverse event counts for drugs), sorting, citation URIs, and efficiency benefits. No gaps remain.

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 has 100% coverage with two parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that for 'company' type values should be tickers/CIKs, and for 'drug' type values should be drug names, with concrete examples. This goes beyond the schema's enum and array 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 clearly states that the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 entities (companies or drugs) in one call, and distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups by providing trigger phrases like 'compare X and Y'. It also specifies the data retrieved for each entity type.

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 recommends preferring this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and differentiates between 'company' and 'drug' types. It lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear usage context.

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

All Buzzword Density 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, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several prediction market tools. This causes ambiguity for agents trying to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, forget) with noun phrases (entity_profile) and inconsistent prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_). No consistent naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set is excessive for a server named 'Buzzword Density' and includes many redundant or overlapping tools. A more focused set of 10-15 would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations (retrieval, comparison, monitoring, memory), missing only minor lifecycle operations like updating stored data.

Resources