Skip to main content
Glama

openalex

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: off-calendar fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with pipeworx:// citation URIs. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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-organized with trigger phrases, a clear directive, and type-specific details. It avoids fluff, though the example list of trigger phrases could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, 2–5 items, parallel execution, no output schema), the description fully contextualizes input constraints, data sources, sorting behavior, and output format. It even quantifies the benefit (replaces 8–15 sequential lookups), making it complete for an agent.

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% (both type and values have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by specifying what each type pulls (company: 10-K financials; drug: FAERS counts, FDA approvals, trial counts) and clarifies the values format with examples. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. It uses specific verbs like 'compare', 'rank', and 'head to head', and distinguishes itself from siblings like entity_profile by explicitly covering multi-entity comparison.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and lists trigger phrases. It also differentiates between company and drug use cases, making it clear when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

All openalex 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are effectively indistinguishable or near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical copy of ask_pipeworx with no active experimental changes, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is a variant of the same router. discover_tools, suggest_questions, deep_research, and the ask_pipeworx family also heavily overlap as discovery/answer surfaces, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk create a dense prediction-market cluster with fuzzy boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case and many names follow a readable verb_noun pattern (search_works, resolve_entity, validate_claim, suggest_questions), but conventions are mixed: noun-first domain-prefixed names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and adjective_noun names (deep_research, recent_changes) coexist. The inconsistency is not chaotic, but it is not a unified scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25-tool threshold for a heavy toolset, and the count is inflated by many tangential concerns: memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility, and llms.txt generation. Only a small subset actually serves the stated OpenAlex/scholarly purpose, so the size feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a server named openalex, the scholarly surface is incomplete: works support search and fetch, but authors and institutions only support search with no get-by-ID, concepts support get but no search, and major OpenAlex resource types like sources, publishers, funders, and topics are absent. The many non-OpenAlex tools do not fill these gaps and instead dilute the domain coverage.

Resources