Skip to main content
Glama

artic

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Deep Research

deep_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

ACCOUNT REQUIRED (free — sign in via GitHub at https://pipeworx.io/signup; depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan). If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier. Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1495 STRUCTURED data sources (SEC filings, FRED/BLS economics, FDA, USPTO patents, markets, science, government records, etc.) in ONE call — this is NOT open-web search. Decomposes your question into focused facets, routes each to the right one of 5,714 tools IN PARALLEL, and returns a findings packet: verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + a stable pipeworx:// citation per finding, with explicit gaps[] for facets the data couldn't answer (never invented). Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data ("compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure", "research the filings + market picture for ACME"). For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx (one LLM call, not many). For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS / "what's the world saying about X" topics, prefer ask_pipeworx — it routes to live news APIs and the *-news-feeds packs; deep_research returns mostly empty gaps[] when the topic isn't in the structured catalog. Second-hop iteration: depth:"standard" re-angles unanswered gaps (gap recovery); depth:"thorough" additionally chases the best leads from the first pass — so multi-step questions resolve in one call. Every finding carries a hop field and a citation_uri — a resolvable pipeworx:// record URI, present only when the source emits one that resources/read can actually serve, so a citation you get back is always fetchable. "standard" and "thorough" also return contradictions[] flagging findings that disagree. Large records are semantically excerpted to the passages relevant to each facet (not head-truncated), so answers deep in a long filing/series aren't missed. Expect 15-60s (thorough with its follow-up + contradiction pass: up to ~90s).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoHow many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=3 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=6 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan).
questionYesThe research question, in natural language. Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds account requirements, paid depth tier, latency expectations, gap[] handling, contradiction[] detection, semantic excerpting, and guaranteed-fetchable citations. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with prerequisites and alternatives, and every major clause contributes operational value. It runs long and repeats some points already in the schema, but the complexity of the tool justifies most of the length.

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 specifies the findings packet fields: evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps, contradictions, and hop. It also covers failure modes, alternatives, account requirements, and expected latency, so an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context for depth values: gap recovery, lead chasing, multi-step resolution, and latency expectations. It meaningfully extends the schema without being essential.

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?

States a specific action: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1495 structured data sources, with decomposition and parallel routing. It clearly distinguishes itself as NOT open-web search and describes the findings packet components. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose statement.

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?

Explicitly says use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking/current-news topics. It also states deep_research is best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions. This is textbook when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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

All artic 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying sources, and six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have blurry boundaries. The four art museum tools are entirely unrelated to the data-research tools, adding confusion to the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and generally readable, but the verb-object pattern is not consistent: bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe) sit alongside verb-first names (get_artwork, validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, ai_visibility_check). The repeated prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_) do provide some structure.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is overstuffed. The core Pipeworx data and Polymarket analytics surface alone would justify roughly 20 tools, but memory management, subscription lifecycle, llms.txt generation, npm dependency scanning, claim validation, and Art Institute of Chicago lookups are unrelated additions that push the count well beyond a focused scope.

Completeness4/5

Each functional cluster is fairly complete on its own: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe, data lookup has casual, grounded, deep, and validation modes, and prediction markets cover research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, and cross-venue spreads. The issue is not missing capabilities but the lack of a single coherent domain.

Resources