Skip to main content
Glama

Open Elevation

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral details: off-calendar fiscal year handling, sorted results by primary metric, and pipeworx:// citation URIs. However, it omits potential rate limits or response format details, which would further enhance transparency.

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 highly efficient: it front-loads common user queries, packs essential information about data sources, sorting, and citations into two sentences, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 covers return type (paired data, citation URIs) and sorting behavior. It lacks details on exact output structure or edge cases (e.g., missing data for a ticker), but for a comparison tool of this complexity, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use 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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what data each type pulls (10-K metrics for company, adverse-event counts for drug), providing concrete examples of values (e.g., ['AAPL','MSFT']), and clarifying the 2-5 item range. This justifies a score above baseline.

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 comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs, citing specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, FAERS) and differentiating from sibling tools like entity_profile (single entity) or resolve_entity. The verb 'compare' and examples like 'compare X and Y' make the 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 provides clear usage examples ('compare X and Y', 'which is bigger', 'rank these companies') and explicitly instructs to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities. It also clarifies when to use 'company' vs 'drug' type, leaving no ambiguity about context.

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

All Open Elevation 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set covers many unrelated domains (elevation, finance, prediction markets, AI visibility, etc.) with multiple overlapping tools per domain (e.g., three 'ask_pipeworx' variants, several 'polymarket' tools). An agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names follow no consistent pattern: some use snake_case with vague verbs (e.g., 'process', 'run'), others use descriptive but unrelated prefixes ('ai_', 'ask_pipeworx_', 'polymarket_'). There is no uniform verb_noun structure.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the count is reasonable for a large server, but the vast majority are irrelevant to the server's stated purpose (elevation). This mismatch makes the count inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The server name 'Open Elevation' implies a focus on elevation data, yet only 2 of 32 tools (get_elevation, get_elevations) are related. There are severe gaps: no area elevation, no geocoding, no terrain analysis. The tool surface is largely off-topic.

Resources