Skip to main content
Glama

Cnb Cz

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 only supply readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden and exceeds it: it discloses account/auth requirements, paid tiers, internal decomposition into facets with parallel routing, output structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[]), semantic excerpting, and expected latency. 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 dense and front-loaded with the account requirement, and the core purpose appears early. There is minor redundancy in the repeated ask_pipeworx comparisons and the citation_uri mention, but each sentence contributes a distinct behavioral or usage fact.

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 fully defines return semantics: findings packet components, gaps[] behavior, contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri resolvability. It also covers failure modes, latency, and account prerequisites, giving an agent everything necessary 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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by mapping depth values to facet counts, hops, gap recovery, and contradictions scan, and by clarifying that 'question' is natural language that can be broad/multi-part. This exceeds schema detail but is not essential for basic invocation, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it 'conducts grounded multi-source research' across '1497 STRUCTURED data sources' and decomposes questions into facets. Explicitly says 'this is NOT open-web search' and distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS / "what's the world saying about X" topics, prefer ask_pipeworx'. Also names the sign-in fallback and tier requirement, giving an agent clear routing conditions.

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

All Cnb Cz 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some pairs (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile vs recent_changes) could cause agent confusion without careful reading. Descriptions mitigate overlap, so only minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use snake_case with verb_noun or noun_verb patterns, but several single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe) and a few inconsistent forms (czeonia, pribor) break uniformity. Still, the pattern is largely predictable.

Tool Count4/5

31 tools is high but justified for a multi-domain data gateway covering finance, economics, FDA, betting, and subscriptions. Each tool has a clear role, though the count pushes the upper bound for easy scanning.

Completeness5/5

The tool set comprehensively covers its stated domains: entity resolution, financial data, exchange rates, interest rates, SEC filings, FDA, Polymarket analysis, subscriptions, and utility memory. No obvious gaps given its purpose as a data retrieval and analysis server.

Resources