Skip to main content
Glama

Security Feeds

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), special handling (off-calendar fiscal years), sorting behavior, and output format (paired data + citation URIs), going well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 concise, front-loaded with natural-language examples, and covers all key aspects without verbosity. Minor structural improvement possible (e.g., bullet points) but not necessary.

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 adequately covers return values (paired data, sorted, with citation URIs) and data fields for each entity type. However, explicit mention of the exact metrics returned for each type might further enhance completeness.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds crucial context: explains enum values ('company' vs 'drug') and the expected input format for the 'values' array (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names for drugs).

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 identifies the tool's action ('compare') and resource ('entities'), and distinguishes it from siblings by stating it replaces 8-15 sequential single-entity lookups (e.g., 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?

The description explicitly lists trigger phrases (e.g., 'compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and states a strong preference over sequential lookups, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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

All Security Feeds 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded trio creates real selection ambiguity — beta is currently identical to the stable router, and grounded shares the same routing with an added evidence step. Polymarket tools also overlap (polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage both surface structural arbitrage), and entity_profile/recent_changes both pull filings and news.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, list_feeds, validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist — bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe) and noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) — but the overall convention is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server nominally named 'Security Feeds' — only three tools actually relate to security feeds. Even as a broad data-research platform, the surface feels bloated with five near-exclusive Polymarket tools, three memory tools, and four subscription-lifecycle tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For the actual domain revealed by the tools (data research, entity intelligence, prediction markets, subscriptions, feeds), coverage is strong: resolution, profiles, changes, comparison, claim verification, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and feed operations are all present. Minor gaps include no subscription-update tool and no direct feed-search tool, but the ask_pipeworx router compensates.

Resources