Skip to main content
Glama

Boi Il

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?

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel decomposition across 5,743 tools, gaps[] for unanswered facets, 'never invented' grounding, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, hop fields, always-fetchable citation_uri, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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 the tool is genuinely complex and nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It is front-loaded with the critical account requirement and fallback tool. Slightly dense and repetitive in places, but efficient for the level of behavioral nuance it must convey.

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 research tool with no output schema, the description covers the input, output shape, auth requirements, cost constraints, alternatives, failure behavior, latency, and depth semantics. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call the tool and what to expect from it.

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% and both parameters have descriptive entries, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: the question parameter can be broad/multi-part because decomposition is the point, and the depth parameter is expanded with hop behavior and gap-recovery semantics beyond the enum descriptions. This is a meaningful but not transformative addition.

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 action and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call, and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It also clearly differentiates from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting this is for broad/multi-part questions while ask_pipeworx handles single 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It also gives when-not-to-use and alternatives: use ask_pipeworx for single lookups and for breaking/current-news topics, and use ask_pipeworx if not signed in. Account requirements and paid tier limitations are clearly stated.

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

All Boi Il 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have highly detailed descriptions that clarify their distinct roles, and the pipeworx/boi/polymarket families are individually distinguishable. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx (a true duplicate), and the polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) share overlapping purpose and could cause misselection despite their lengthy docs.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but a large subset uses noun-first or prefixed compound names (ai_visibility_check, bet_research, boi_exchange_rate, polymarket_arbitrage). The naming is readable and group-consistent (boi_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*) but the overall convention is mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and spans many unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, llms.txt generation, feedback). The broad scope explains the count, but many tools feel like add-on utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, making the surface feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core domain—authoritative structured data access—is extremely well covered: universal routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, resolution, discovery, and suggestions. Minor gaps exist (no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI directly, no update operation for subscriptions), but agents can work around these via the router and existing subscription lifecycle tools.

Resources