Skip to main content
Glama

Carbon Interface

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds extensive behavioral detail: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS/FDA), correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return format with citation URIs. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Although long, the description is front-loaded with trigger phrases and priority guidance, and every clause contributes value (data sources, sorting, fiscal years, return format). There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers invocation triggers, parameter shape, data sources, behavioral nuances (fiscal year handling, sorting), return format, and even the performance benefit (replaces 8–15 lookups). No significant 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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what each type retrieves (latest 10-K financials for companies, adverse-event/trial counts for drugs) and gives concrete examples for the values array, enriching the schema's semantics.

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 2–5 companies or drugs in a single call, with explicit trigger phrases like 'X vs Y' and 'which is bigger'. It also distinguishes itself from sequential single-entity lookups, making the 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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and provides trigger phrases that indicate when to invoke. It also explains the different data sources for company vs drug types, offering clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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

All Carbon Interface 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 are near-duplicates or heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, several polymarket_* tools cover the same edge-detection domain, and scan_competitor_ai_presence is just a wrapper around ai_visibility_check. Agents will frequently struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (estimate_electricity, resolve_entity), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes), brand-specific (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending), and family-prefixed (polymarket_*). The naming is readable but lacks a single cohesive convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set is far larger than the 'Carbon Interface' name implies. It piles together carbon estimation, a massive data-router, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools, making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The carbon-estimation purpose is thin (only three estimators with no lifecycle), but the broader Pipeworx/data and prediction-market subdomains are fairly well covered. Gaps exist in each subdomain (e.g., no order placement for betting, no carbon scope beyond the three estimates), and the lack of a clear primary domain makes coverage hard to assess.

Resources