Skip to main content
Glama

Data Calgary

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial context: SEC EDGAR/XBRL data sources, handling of off-calendar fiscal years (AAPL, NVDA examples), FAERS/drug-specific metrics, result sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with citation URIs. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: trigger patterns, preference guidance, type-specific data sources, fiscal-year handling, sorting, output format, and efficiency value. It is front-loaded with user phrasing and ends with the benefit, with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key return behavior (paired data, citation URIs, sorting by metric). It also covers scope limits (2–5) and data provenance. This is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches both parameters: it explains what 'company' vs 'drug' types fetch (net income, trial counts, etc.) and gives concrete value examples like tickers and drug names. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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 starts with explicit trigger phrases and clearly states the resource ('companies or drugs') and action ('side-by-side comparison of 2–5'). It distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, which is echoed by the sibling entity_profile, and explains the data sources and output.

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 provides explicit when-to-use signals ('ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities') and examples of user intent. It implicitly excludes non-comparison use cases and names the alternative (single lookups) it replaces, meeting the when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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

All Data Calgary 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are overlapping families (ask_pipeworx variants, company research tools) that could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might misselect without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow snake_case with a verb+noun pattern, but some names are less clear (e.g., 'recall', 'remember' are verbs alone). Overall consistent enough, with minor deviations.

Tool Count4/5

33 tools is on the higher side, but the server covers a wide domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, monitoring). Each tool has a clear purpose, so the count feels appropriate rather than excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete: querying, comparisons, monitoring, alerts, memory, arbitrage, edge tracking. There are no obvious gaps for the intended data analytics and prediction market use case.

Resources