Skip to main content
Glama

Mockdata

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: single parallel call, data provenance (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), off-calendar fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and citation URI return values.

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 but well-structured with user-phrase examples, type-specific details, and a clear why-to-use rationale. It is longer than ideal, but every sentence adds functional value, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior (paired data + citation URIs), input constraints, type-specific data dimensions, and edge-case handling (off-calendar fiscals). It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds useful data-source context (e.g., 10-K metrics, FAERS counts) and examples, but does not significantly alter parameter understanding beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Clear, specific purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs. The description names user phrasings, data sources, and explicitly contrasts with sequential single-pack lookups, distinguishing it from sibling tools like entity_profile.

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?

Provides explicit preference rule: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also covers type-specific usage and limits, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools or state when to avoid using it beyond the entity-count constraint.

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

All Mockdata 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap within the ask_pipeworx family (beta, grounded) and Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk), which could cause confusion. Detailed descriptions mitigate this, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use snake_case but lack a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some are imperative (discover_tools), others are descriptive (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the higher side for a single server, but the broad scope (company data, prediction markets, memory, etc.) partially justifies the count. However, many tools are variations of core functionality, suggesting possible consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and tasks, including company profiles, comparisons, economic data, and prediction markets. The universal ask_pipeworx router fills most gaps, though some niche data sources might not be directly accessible.

Resources