Skip to main content
Glama

Jwt

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals that calls are parallel, off-calendar fiscal years are handled, results sort by primary metric, and output includes paired data with citation URIs. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact at 4 sentences, front-loaded with examples, and each sentence adds distinct information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 (comparing multiple entities with two types), the description covers purpose, when to use, data sources, sorting, and output format (paired data + citation URIs). Lacking explicit output schema details, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'values' for companies are tickers/CIKs and for drugs are names, and clarifies that 'type' determines the specific data pulled (financial vs. FAERS). This surpasses the schema alone.

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 starts with explicit query examples and states it provides side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs. It clearly distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups, supported by the sibling tool 'entity_profile' which handles single entities.

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' and gives context for when to use (comparing, ranking, head-to-head). It does not specify when not to use, but the preference statement effectively guides the agent.

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

All Jwt 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

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language queries to the same underlying catalog, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently documented as identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also overlaps in purpose, leaving an agent to parse fine-grained differences before selecting.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and several share recognizable prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), which helps readability. However, the verb/noun order is inconsistent—compare_entities vs entity_profile, bet_research vs deep_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence vs ai_visibility_check—and bare verbs like remember, forget, and subscribe mix with noun-first names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set. The bloat is worse because the server is named 'Jwt' but only one tool relates to JWT; the rest cover unrelated domains such as data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning, so the count is neither scoped to the server's name nor internally cohesive.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Jwt', the surface is severely incomplete: only decode_jwt is present, with no sign, verify, encode, or refresh tools, so common JWT workflows dead-end. Even when judged as a general Pipeworx data toolkit, the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool surface creates a significant gap for agents expecting JWT functionality.

Resources