Skip to main content
Glama

Brapi

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 1517 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 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How 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)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context: account and paid-tier constraints, parallel routing across 5,798 tools, explicit gaps[] with a 'never invented' guarantee, contradictions[] for standard/thorough depths, latency expectations (15-60s, ~90s for thorough), semantic excerpting of large records, and the guarantee that citation_uri is only present when it is actually fetchable. This goes far beyond what annotations 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 front-loaded with the most critical facts: account requirement, the primary alternative, and the core one-call research behavior. Each additional sentence covers a distinct aspect (exclusions, depth semantics, output structure, latency, citation guarantees). A few redundancies like repeating 'one call' and 'ask_pipeworx' exist, and the text could be tightened slightly, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: findings packet elements (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable citation), gaps[], contradictions[], the hop field, and citation_uri semantics. It also covers prerequisites, depth-mode behavior, expected latency, and when to prefer alternative tools. For a tool with this complexity, the description leaves little for an agent to infer.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains what each depth value actually does by mapping them to facet counts and hop behavior (quick=3 single hop, standard=3 with gap recovery + contradictions, thorough=6 with iterative leads + contradictions), flags that thorough requires a paid plan, and clarifies that the question parameter accepts natural-language broad/multi-part questions. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment that helps an agent choose parameters.

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 performs grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call, decomposing questions and returning a findings packet. It explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for different needs. The verb 'research' plus the resource scope makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: it states the account requirement, warns that depth:'thorough' needs a paid plan, and gives concrete routing rules — 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and 'For breaking/current news... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also gives best-fit examples (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and describes when the tool is not appropriate, leaving no ambiguity.

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

All Brapi 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all route to the same source catalog, the six Polymarket tools have fuzzy boundaries between research, edge scanning, arbitrage, and fill checking, and available vs quote_list both enumerate B3 tickers. The descriptions are detailed and try to differentiate, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong meta-tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow lower_snake_case verb_noun naming (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim, list_subscriptions). Deviations like available, quote, crypto, currency, inflation, and prime_rate are bare nouns, and forget is a lone verb, but the convention remains readable and largely predictable.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for what the server name (Brapi) suggests, and the set spans unrelated domains: Brazilian market data, a 5,798-tool universal data router, Polymarket betting analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count crosses the 25+ threshold and dilutes the server's focus.

Completeness4/5

Within each sub-domain the surface is fairly complete: brapi.dev quotes/directory/rates, Pipeworx routing/grounding/research/entity resolution/validation, prediction-market arbitrage/fill checks, memory CRUD, and subscription lifecycle all cover their core workflows. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated historical stock-price series beyond quote's OHLC window and deep_research requiring an account, but agents can work around them.

Resources