Skip to main content
Glama

Datos Ar

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
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that for companies it pulls latest 10-K financial data from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with proper fiscal year handling, and for drugs it pulls FAERS and FDA data. It also mentions sorted results and citation URIs.

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 somewhat verbose with multiple trigger phrase examples. While it is front-loaded with key purpose, some sentences could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting behavior, and entity-specific data sources. It is thorough and leaves no obvious gaps for using the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant context: explains what each 'type' retrieves, gives concrete examples for 'values', and clarifies constraints (2–5 items). This adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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 performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs with specific data sources per type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entity_profile by stating it should replace 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists explicit trigger phrases ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger', etc.) and instructs to prefer over sequential single-pack lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, leaving a slight gap.

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

All Datos Ar 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools cluster around the same underlying data router (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the prediction-market family has five overlapping members, so misselection is possible. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate most intents, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are close cousins.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case, and most follow a clear verb_noun shape like ask_pipeworx, get_series, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges) and the bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy surface that exceeds the 25-tool threshold where selection cost becomes a real problem for agents. The count is inflated by auxiliary concerns like memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, and AI-presence scans that sit alongside the core data-access mission.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflows are well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, get_series), entity resolution (resolve_entity), profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and prediction-market analysis all have end-to-end support. Memory and subscription lifecycles are also complete. Minor gaps exist — some sources soft-fail and there is little Argentina-specific tooling beyond the time-series pair — but agents can generally work around them.

Resources