Skip to main content
Glama

Census Trade

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), sorting by primary metric, return format (paired data + pipeworx:// URIs), and the fact it makes one parallel call. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, read-only, idempotent behavior, which is consistent.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with example queries followed by details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, data sources, and return format in a few 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (paired data, citation URIs) and sorting behavior. It covers all aspects of the tool's operation. For a simple 2-param tool, this is complete.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds semantic context: for type, it specifies what data is pulled (revenue, net income, etc. for company; adverse events, trials for drug). For values, it gives examples and constraints. Slight improvement over schema.

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 it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with example queries like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups and should be preferred over single-pack lookups.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It includes example query patterns. It does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if more than 5 entities needed), but the schema enforces limits. Overall, clear context for usage.

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

All Census Trade 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

There is substantial overlap among the question-routing tools: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all funnel natural-language queries into similar source lookups. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also cover nearly the same capability, making tool selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (census_exports, list_subscriptions, validate_claim), but the convention drifts with noun-first names like entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, and recent_alerts, and bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe. It is readable but not a tight, predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server named 'Census Trade' when only 4 of them actually relate to Census trade data. The remaining 31 form an unrelated general-purpose data, prediction-market, memory, and subscription toolkit, making the surface feel bloated and badly scoped relative to the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The Census trade core covers exports, imports, trade balance, and monthly trends, which handles the central queries, but there is no HS-code catalog, country metadata, or state/port-level breakdown, leaving notable gaps for a trade-data domain. If judged as the broad Pipeworx gateway it appears to actually be, coverage is richer, but that contradicts the server name and weakens overall coherence.

Resources