Skip to main content
Glama

Data Denver

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/Trials for drugs), fiscal year handling, and result sorting, going 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 dense but well-organized, front-loading key purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, though it's a single paragraph without explicit structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return data (paired data + citation URIs) and data freshness. Rich annotations compensate for any gaps, but a note on auth or rate limits could improve completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies enum values and array constraints but doesn't add format details beyond 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 explicitly states the tool compares 2-5 companies or drugs side-by-side in one parallel call, with example queries and clear distinction 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?

The description explicitly instructs to prefer this over sequential lookups and details when to use for company vs drug types, providing clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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

All Data Denver 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical (beta is currently exactly the same), and scan_competitor_ai_presence is a multi-entity wrapper around ai_visibility_check. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong variant when a simple lookup is needed.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim) with noun-first patterns (denver_layers, entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges). There are clear families (ask_pipeworx_*, denver_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) but no single consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a large surface for one server, exceeding the 25-tool threshold where coherence starts to degrade. Many tools are meta-routers or near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx family), and the mix of general data access, Denver-specific queries, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions feels sprawling rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the apparent domain well: universal data lookup, grounded evidence, deep research, entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, claim validation, AI visibility, dependency scanning, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct update tool for subscriptions, no way to inspect the full 5,798-tool catalog locally without routing through ask_pipeworx), but agents can accomplish most workflows without dead ends.

Resources