Skip to main content
Glama

Balldontlie

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 1500 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 5,743 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?

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description richly discloses behavior: account/paid-tier requirements, parallel routing to 5,743 tools, explicit gaps[] instead of invention, contradictions[] for standard/thorough depth, citation_uri semantics, semantic excerpting, and expected latency of 15-90 seconds. This goes well beyond what annotations already convey.

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 long, but each sentence carries substantive guidance: auth constraints, alternatives, source scope, mechanics, return format, limitations, and timing. It is front-loaded with the critical account requirement, though it repeats some parameter-level details that already appear in the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the return packet fields, citation behavior, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, excerpting behavior, latency, and auth/tier restrictions, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the depth enum. The description adds value by clarifying that 'question' can be broad/multi-part, that 'thorough' requires a paid plan, and that standard/thorough add gap recovery and contradiction scanning—semantics not fully visible from the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' that 'decomposes your question into focused facets' and returns a 'findings packet.' It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying 'this is NOT open-web search' and naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative for simpler lookups.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking or colloquial current-news topics. It also identifies deep_research as best for 'broad/multi-part questions over structured data,' leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool versus its siblings.

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

All Balldontlie 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all performing similar data queries. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_fill_risk cover the same betting domain. Players/player, teams/team, and games/game also blur distinctions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming styles are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (e.g., validate_claim, discover_tools), others are plain nouns (e.g., player, team, stats), and some are individual verbs (e.g., forget, recall). There's no predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the set is large and spans multiple unrelated domains (NBA stats, betting, general data lookup, memory). Given the server name 'Balldontlie' suggests NBA focus, the number is excessive and many tools feel out of place.

Completeness2/5

For an NBA stats server, the tool surface is incomplete (missing play-by-play, advanced stats, season leaders, etc.). As a general data server, it relies on meta-tools like ask_pipeworx rather than dedicated tools, so coverage is indirect and not comprehensive.

Resources