Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sf

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are all consistent. The description adds behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively long but front-loaded with example queries. While informative, some redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., 'side-by-side comparison' and 'head to head'). Still, it is well-structured and readable.

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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources), the description covers use cases, sorting, and return format (paired data + URIs). No output schema, but description adequately sets expectations.

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 meaning: explains enum values (company/drug) with specific data sources, and provides example inputs for values (tickers/CIIKs or drug names). This 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 comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with example queries like 'compare X and Y' and 'which is bigger'. It distinguishes from sequential single-pack 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 Guidelines4/5

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', guiding when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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

All Data Sf 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 all route questions to similar data sources, while search_within also overlaps with grounded answering. bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction markets. Agents must read descriptions carefully to pick the right variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Some are single nouns (recent_alerts, recent_changes, key_alerts), a few break the convention (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, remember, forget). Overall mostly consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a high count for a general-purpose data server, and several seem redundant: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edge_tracker vs polymarket_arbitrage, and the numerous meta-tools create overhead. A focused dataset server would be better with 10–15 tools.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers many domains well: SEC filings, economics/FRED, prediction markets, news, clinical trials, San Francisco open data, npm dependencies. Obvious gaps include no financial statement form filings beyond 8-K/10-K, no calendar/event scheduling, and no update-else path for several key objects (but memory tools fill that gap). Attribution currently ships in almost all requested tools, providing evidence.

Resources