Skip to main content
Glama

Data Providence

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes much further: it reveals account/plan gating, parallel decomposition and routing, the findings packet shape, explicit gaps[] and contradictions[], citation fetchability semantics, semantic excerpting, and expected latency ranges. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotations and beyond the schema.

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 almost every clause carries distinct operational information: prerequisites, alternatives, decomposition behavior, output fields, caveats, and latency. It is front-loaded with the most critical gating info (account/plan requirement) and then moves to usage guidance. Slight structural denseness and long parentheticals keep it from a perfect score.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return packet, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citations, and latency behavior. It also covers prerequisites, depth options, and alternatives. An agent has what it needs to decide whether to call this tool and to interpret the result at a high level.

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 the schema already documents the depth enum and the question parameter in detail. The description adds value by clarifying that depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan and by describing how 'standard' and 'thorough' behave with gap recovery and contradiction scanning, which is genuinely supplementary.

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, distinctive purpose: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources in a single call, explicitly distinguishing itself from open-web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx. It also gives concrete example use cases and contrasts with single-lookup tools, making it easy for an agent to select.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, and use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It also names the prerequisite account/plan requirement, leaving little to inference.

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

All Data Providence 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_kalshi_spread all hunt mispricings via different mechanisms, ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve tool discovery. The rich descriptions mitigate but do not eliminate misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all snake_case and follow recognizable conventions: verb_noun for actions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, recent_*, ask_pipeworx_*), and a few bare verbs (remember, recall, query). Minor deviations like bet_research (noun_verb) and noun-only names (datasets, metadata) break the pattern, but the overall scheme is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and bundles several distinct domains — general data querying, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, open data, and npm auditing — into one server. The breadth is defensible for a data platform, but the agent-facing surface is sprawling and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The core data workflow is well covered: discover (discover_tools, suggest_questions), resolve (resolve_entity), query (ask_pipeworx), ground (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), research (deep_research), compare (compare_entities), profile (entity_profile), and changes (recent_changes). Prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions each have full lifecycles. The main gap is no tool for fetching returned pipeworx:// citation URIs directly, plus a few soft-failing sources.

Resources