Skip to main content
Glama

Worms

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description reveals critical behaviors: correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting results by primary metric, and specific data pulled for each entity type. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads common query patterns and packs essential information (data sources, sorting, efficiency claim) without redundancies.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the response contains (paired data + citation URIs) and how results are ordered. It covers input, behavior, and output expectations comprehensively given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains what data each 'type' value retrieves, the expected format for 'values' (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names for drug), and the min/max constraints.

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's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It lists common query patterns and specifies data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), making it distinct from sibling 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?

The description explicitly advises to prefer this over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and quantifies the efficiency gain (replaces 8–15 sequential lookups). This provides 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 Worms 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all route natural-language questions to sources with overlapping response shapes. The Polymarket family is better differentiated, but an agent faces real selection risk among the query family.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, which is good, but verb conventions vary widely: ask_/get_/search_/list_/validate_/generate_/scan_ plus noun-only names like ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, bet_research, and the pipeworx_* prefix. The pattern is readable but not predictable enough to guess a tool's function from its name alone.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a coherent tool set. The server tries to be a universal data gateway, prediction-market toolkit, memory store, subscription manager, WoRMS lookup, and dependency scanner all at once—scope creep that makes the surface unreasonably large.

Completeness2/5

For a data-access server there are notable holes: pipeworx:// citation URIs are advertised as fetchable but no tool resolves them directly; subscriptions can be created, listed, and cancelled but not updated or paused; and the WoRMS component (which matches the 'Worms' server name) has only three lookup tools with no synonym/distribution/export coverage.

Resources