Skip to main content
Glama

Edmtrain

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses detailed behavior: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), specific metrics pulled (revenue, net income, etc.), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with citation URIs. This enriches the annotations which already indicate read-only and idempotent nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single well-organized paragraph: user query examples, core function, preference guidance, data details, output format. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers return values (paired data + citation URIs), sorting, and data sources. With only 2 parameters and clear input constraints, it provides a complete picture for correct invocation.

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 explaining the data pulled for each type and providing concrete examples for values (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names). This practical guidance goes beyond schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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 entities (companies or drugs) in a single parallel call, with specific examples like 'compare X and Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes itself from sequential single-entity lookups, making purpose unmistakable.

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 advises to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and provides trigger phrases like 'which is bigger' or 'head to head'. It does not list exclusions but the guidance is strong and clear, eliminating guesswork.

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

All Edmtrain 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with an extraction step, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve as 'what can I do here' entry points. The polymarket_* family is more distinct, but the ask_pipeworx/deep_research overlap alone makes tool selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow lowercase snake_case with recognizable domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), which is a decent pattern. However, there are bare-noun tools (events, locations, recall, forget) and mixed verb-first vs noun-first ordering (list_subscriptions vs entity_profile, scan_dependency vs polymarket_edges), so it is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the comfortable range and feels heavy even for a broad data-research platform. Many tools are narrow variations (five polymarket analysis tools, four ask_pipeworx variants, three memory tools) that could plausibly be consolidated or exposed as parameterized modes rather than separate top-level tools.

Completeness4/5

For the actual domain suggested by the tool names and descriptions—structured data research, entity profiling, claim verification, and prediction-market analysis—the surface is quite complete: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, comparisons, recent-change tracking, subscriptions, memory, and arbitrage/fill-risk analysis are all covered. However, relative to the server name 'Edmtrain', the event-discovery surface is extremely thin (only events and locations), which is a notable mismatch.

Resources