Skip to main content
Glama

Simap

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), correct handling of fiscal years, sorting by metric, and citation URIs. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph with front-loaded trigger phrases. It is dense but efficient, covering all key aspects without unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format (paired data + citation URIs). It covers entity types, value constraints, data sources, and sorting, making it sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds meaning: explains what data each type pulls, limits on values (2-5), and that results are sorted by primary metric.

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 uses specific verbs like 'compare' and 'side-by-side comparison' with clear resources: companies (SEC EDGAR financials) and drugs (FAERS data). It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_profile and validates against sequential lookups.

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?

The description explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and provides trigger phrases. While it doesn't specify when to avoid usage, the scope is well-defined.

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

All Simap 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

There are several tools with overlapping query responsibilities: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-variants of the same router, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunity discovery. An agent must read the long descriptions carefully to distinguish them, and some variants are behaviorally identical today.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but the verb_noun convention is not consistently applied: some are clean verb phrases like validate_claim and discover_tools, while others are noun phrases like entity_profile, recent_alerts, or simap_project. The prefixed groups (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) help, but the overall naming style is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the heavy range, and the set is inflated by redundant router variants, five overlapping Polymarket tools, and loosely related utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. The server is named Simap but only three tools relate to Swiss procurement, making the scope feel bloated and misaligned.

Completeness4/5

For an information-retrieval-style server, the core workflows are well covered: discovery, routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, subscriptions, and memory. The main gaps are minor, such as updating a subscription in place or deeper native Simap-specific actions, and those can be worked around.

Resources