Skip to main content
Glama

Cactus

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 1499 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 5,738 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 convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: parallel decomposition, gaps[] never invented, citations always fetchable, contradictions[] behavior, semantic excerpting, latency expectations, and account/tier requirements. No contradiction with 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 information-dense; every sentence carries a distinct operational fact. Auth and routing guidance are front-loaded, and the later detail (hop fields, citations, excerpts, latency) is relevant to correct invocation and expectation-setting. Slightly overstuffed, but justified for a tool of this 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return shape, citation semantics, gaps, contradictions, timing, and prerequisites — and it does all of these. For a complex parallel-research tool, nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it and how to interpret results is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the depth enum. The description adds valuable nuance beyond the schema by explaining what each depth level does in practice ('standard re-angles unanswered gaps', 'thorough chases leads') and by tying 'thorough' to the paid plan.

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 precise verb and resource ('Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources'), returns a findings packet, and explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx. It tells an agent exactly what the tool is and what it is not.

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?

Provides explicit routing rules: use for broad/multi-part structured questions; use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/current news, and when not signed in. It also notes the paid tier requirement for 'thorough', leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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

All Cactus 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

Most tools have clearly differentiated roles, but several pairs blur boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and identify vs resolve both wrap the same NCI CACTUS service. The detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but an agent could easily mispick between the research and chemical lookup options.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, search_within) while many are noun-first or domain-prefixed (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). There is no single predictable pattern for a new tool's name, though subfamilies (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*) are internally consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, this is well above the typical well-scoped range and carries real selection overhead. The unusually broad purpose—a data router plus prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and several standalone utilities—partially justifies the count, but it still feels heavy and could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For its varied subdomains, coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and prediction markets span research, edge scanning, arbitrage, fill-risk, and edge telemetry. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct tool to fetch a specific citation URI by identifier, and the redundant stable/beta router pair—but there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources