Skip to main content
Glama

Timestamp

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts results by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. No contradictions 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?

The description is efficient, front-loaded with example queries, and structured to quickly convey purpose and usage. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the fiscal year detail is useful but slightly verbose), but every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values: paired data with citation URIs and sorted results. It covers both entity types comprehensively, including edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years). The tool is fully documented for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (type enum and values array with min/max). The description enhances this by clarifying the semantics: type='company' pulls financials with ticker/CIK examples, type='drug' pulls safety/trial data with drug name examples. It also explains the array constraints (2–5 items) and acceptable formats.

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 it performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 entities (companies or drugs) using specific data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs). It distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, making the tool's purpose clear and unique.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It provides example query patterns (e.g., 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and clarifies the behavior for 'largest' queries via sorting. This strongly helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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

All Timestamp 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools occupy heavily overlapping territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, validate_claim, and even entity_profile/compare_entities all route questions to similar underlying data and could easily be misselected. The Polymarket suite adds another cluster of near-synonymous tools. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to keep straight.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix imperative verbs (remember, subscribe, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun-phrase descriptors (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and time-utility names (now, from_timestamp, to_timestamp, relative_time). All-lowercase snake_case is consistent, but there is no unified verb_noun or domain-prefix pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable 3-15 range, and most of them are unrelated to the server name 'Timestamp,' which adds confusion. The broad Pipeworx data scope justifies more than a tiny utility server, but the count still feels overstuffed and will burden tool selection.

Completeness3/5

For the broad data-research and prediction-market domain the set actually covers, the lifecycle is fairly complete: query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscription management, and memory storage all have working operations. However, the surface is sprawling and includes one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency that do not fit any coherent domain, making completeness hard to assess and leaving a fuzzy, fragmented impression.

Resources