Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto Fng

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,801 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about experimental routing improvements and that it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. The phrase 'Falls back to nothing' is slightly confusing but does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat repetitive, using 'identical universal router' twice and restating the usage instruction. It is not excessively long but could be more concise without losing key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple input schema (one effective parameter) and thorough annotations, the description covers the beta nature, expected behavior, and usage context. It lacks detailed error handling but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 described, including aliases for the main 'question' field. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router for routing queries to tools. It is clear it serves the same purpose as ask_pipeworx, though it does not explicitly describe the routing action itself beyond 'router'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and contrasts with the stable router. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not list alternative tools explicitly beyond the stable ask_pipeworx.

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

All Crypto Fng 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions through the same underlying catalog with only subtle differences. The polymarket family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) also has fuzzy boundaries. Only the Crypto Fear & Greed tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but there are notable deviations: the ask_pipeworx_* family uses object-style names, pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_edges are noun_noun, and current_index vs index_history uses 'index' inconsistently. The polymarket_* family mixes verb and noun styles internally.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a server ostensibly named 'Crypto Fng' — only 2 of the tools relate to that core purpose. The rest constitute a broad generic data-research and prediction-market platform that would be more appropriately scoped as its own server. The count exceeds the comfortable range for an agent to reason over.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual (broad) domain, the surface is fairly complete: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), querying (ask_pipeworx family), grounded verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle. The named crypto-sentiment domain is fully covered with current and historical index tools, though the underlying 5,708 pack tools are only reachable indirectly through the router.

Resources