Skip to main content
Glama

Data La

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds significant behavioral context: for companies it pulls specific financial data from SEC EDGAR/XBRL, handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts results by primary metric, and returns citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 reasonably concise, with trigger phrases front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than necessary. Structured well with examples and explanations.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains what each type returns, the data sources, sorting, and efficiency benefits, leaving no important gaps.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by detailing what data is retrieved per type (e.g., revenue, net income for companies) and how results are sorted, which goes beyond the 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 the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2–5 companies or drugs, with specific verb phrases like 'Compare X and Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile by emphasizing parallel vs. 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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases and contexts for use (e.g., 'which is bigger', 'head to head'). Instructs to prefer over sequential single-pack lookups. Clearly defines behavior for different entity types and data sources.

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

All Data La 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

Many tools have closely related or overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route to the same underlying toolset, while discover_tools and suggest_questions both help agents discover capabilities. The polymarket_* family also has several opportunity-scanning tools with subtle differences, though detailed descriptions help clarify.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case but follow mixed patterns: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research, la_recent), and bare verbs (remember, forget, unsubscribe). The prefix groups (la_, pipeworx_, polymarket_) show some consistency, but there is no uniform verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' range for a single server. The surface bundles several distinct domains—structured data querying, prediction markets, LA open data, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning—making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness4/5

Within each bundled sub-domain, coverage is strong: query/grounded/research/entity-profile/compare/validate covers data workflows; polymarket tools include research, edge scan, arbitrage, fill-risk, and cross-venue spread; LA data has search/query/recent; memory and subscription lifecycles are fully CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no way to browse LA dataset attributes beyond search), but no major dead ends.

Resources