Skip to main content
Glama

Utah Open Data

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, and sorting behavior. Could note potential data latency but still strong.

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 with information but well-structured: examples first, then usage guidance, then data sources, then sort order. It could be slightly more concise but no sentences are wasted.

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, the description explains return format ('paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs') and sorting. It covers essential behavior for a comparison tool replacing many lookups, though could mention pagination or size limits explicitly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that for companies, tickers or CIKs are expected, and for drugs, names. It also explains the underlying data pulled (revenue, net income, etc. for companies; adverse events for drugs).

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's purpose with multiple verbs ('compare', 'rank', 'head to head') and specifies the resource (companies or drugs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'entity_profile' by emphasizing side-by-side comparison.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities') and implies when not to use it (for single entity lookups, which go to entity_profile). Also quantifies efficiency ('Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups').

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

All Utah Open Data 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

The toolset contains several near-duplicate clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same kinds of questions, and the six polymarket tools have heavily overlapping scopes. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right variant despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim, polymarket_arbitrage). Minor deviations like bare nouns (datasets, metadata) are acceptable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far beyond what a Utah Open Data server needs; only 3 tools actually relate to the named domain. The rest form a sprawling general-purpose Pipeworx/prediction-market platform, making the surface feel bloated for its stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual Utah Open Data catalog, datasets/query/metadata is a complete read-only surface. But for the broader Pipeworx functionality the set actually delivers, there are odd gaps (no account management beyond subscriptions) and many irrelevant tools, so overall coverage is uneven.

Resources