Skip to main content
Glama

science

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide safe read-only profile, but description adds substantial behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return format with citation URIs. No contradiction with 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?

Description is dense but well-structured, starting with trigger phrases and then layering usage, data details, and output. It is longer than minimal but every sentence contributes; slightly verbose with 'Replaces 8–15 sequential lookups' but that's useful context.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains return contents (paired data + citation URIs) and the metrics computed. It covers data sources, fiscal-year handling, sorting, and entity constraints, making it complete for an AI agent to select and invoke.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema covers both parameters, but description enriches meaning by explaining what each 'type' pulls (company financials vs drug regulatory data) and how 'values' are used (tickers/CIKs vs drug names). This goes far beyond the schema's enum and array descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call', identifying specific verb and resource. It also provides example utterances like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies', distinguishing it from single-entity 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit trigger examples and states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', clearly directing when to use the tool. It also clarifies that it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups, giving a comparative advantage over alternatives.

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

All science 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answering questions with slight differences. Also, entity_profile and compare_entities both retrieve company data, and the multitude of Polymarket tools can be confusing. However, many tools have distinct use-cases, so the ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix consistent patterns (e.g., get_air_quality, get_apod) with less predictable ones (e.g., pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research). Some follow verb_noun, others are noun_verb or just noun. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server feels overloaded for a 'science' domain. Many tools are dedicated to prediction markets (Polymarket) and finance, which seem tangential. The count could be reduced by merging similar query tools or removing domain-specific betting tools to better fit the scientific theme.

Completeness2/5

While the server covers a broad range of data sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.), it lacks core scientific tools for physics, chemistry, or biology. The few science-themed tools (get_apod, get_earthquakes) are minor. The set feels incomplete for a dedicated science server, with emphasis on finance and betting instead.

Resources