Skip to main content
Glama

words

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description reveals data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and output includes citation URIs. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent understand what the tool does internally.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but efficient. Every sentence provides actionable detail: trigger examples, entity count, data sources, fiscal-year handling, sorting, output, and efficiency gains. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return structure (paired data + citation URIs). It also covers not just 'what' but 'why' (replaces 8-15 lookups) and 'how' (parallel call, sorting). Given the tool's scope, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds important semantics: type='company' pulls 10-K metrics, type='drug' pulls FAERS counts. It also clarifies the format of 'values' with examples (tickers vs drug names) and reinforces the 2-5 limit, going beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it replaces sequential single-pack lookups and names the entity types and data sources.

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 trigger phrases like 'Compare X and Y' and 'X vs Y' as well as a strong directive: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and implies the alternative (sequential lookups) is inferior.

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

All words 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

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and find_related with syn/rhy options duplicates find_synonyms and find_rhymes. The six Polymarket tools and four entity-research tools also have fuzzy boundaries, so agents will struggle to reliably pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: most tools follow verb_noun (ask_, find_, compare_, validate_) but several are bare nouns or noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alertes, recent_changes) and others are bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The server name 'words' matches only five of 36 tools, adding further confusion about what to expect here.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well into the heavy range, and the set bundles word lookups, a universal data router, six Polymarket tools, memory, subscriptions, and meta-utilities under one server. Many of these would be better split into dedicated, purpose-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant data-research and prediction-market scope, the surface is strong: grounded lookups, deep reseach, entity profiles, compareions, change feeds, claim verification, edge scanners, fill-risk checks, subscriptions, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist: taking 'words' literally there is no defintion or spelling tool, and there is no generic open-web search, but as a data-research toolkit it is quite complete.

Resources