Skip to main content
Glama

Bnm My

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx — Grounded

ask_pipeworx_grounded
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Same routing as ask_pipeworx — picks the right tool from 5,724 across 1497 sources, fills arguments, fetches the data — then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains. Returns {answer, evidence (verbatim quote), confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success, OR an explicit refusal {answer:null, refusal_reason:"not_in_source"|"no_tool_match"|"tool_error"|"data_truncated"|"llm_error"} when the data doesn't directly answer. Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the strict no-invention constraint, the explicit refusal mechanism with specific refusal_reason values, the exact success return shape, and the extra LLM call cost. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 every sentence earns its place: mode, behavior, return shape, refusal reasons, usage guidance, and cost comparison. Key constraints are front-loaded ('only what the tool result contains'), and the sibling comparison is included without 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?

For a question-answering tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the success contract, refusal contract, and selection criteria. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the natural-language question. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains the full behavior: same routing as ask_pipeworx, then extraction 'using ONLY what the tool result contains.' This clearly differentiates it from ask_pipeworx and the siblings without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' This directly tells the agent both when to choose this tool and when to choose its sibling, with concrete examples like financial verdicts and legal claims.

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

All Bnm My 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

Many tools occupy clearly different niches, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap the same router concept, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all target similar 'find an edge' territory. An agent would need to read very long descriptions carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and usefully grouped by prefixes like bnm_, polymarket_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set fairly scannable. However, conventions mix verb-first names (ask_, discover_, resolve_, validate_) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes), so it is not a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool range, and the server bundles several distinct domains: BNM data, the Pipeworx research platform, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscription management. This breadth would be better split into separate focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The BNM-specific surface is well covered, with dedicated tools for the main series plus a generic bnm_endpoint passthrough for anything else. The broader data side is also unusually complete, with routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, and claim verification; only minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated historical endpoint for some BNM series.

Resources