Skip to main content
Glama

Dexscreener

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 1496 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 5,718 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 indicate readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel tool routing, never-invented gaps[], contradiction scans, semantic excerpting, fetchable citation_uri values, and expected latency. There is no contradiction with the 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 dense and front-loaded with the most decision-critical constraint: account requirement and the fallback to ask_pipeworx. It is long and could be better segmented, but nearly every clause carries operational value rather than padding.

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 properly carries the burden of explaining return semantics: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri. It also covers auth, use-case routing, and depth behavior, making it complete enough for invocation.

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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interpretive detail by tying depth choices to the paid tier, hop behavior, gap recovery, contradiction scanning, and latency expectations.

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 verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1496 STRUCTURED data sources in ONE call' and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It also distinguishes itself from sibling ask_pipeworx by use case, making selection unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/current-news topics, or when the user is not signed in. It even explains depth-level tradeoffs and latency, leaving little ambiguity.

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

All Dexscreener 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve question-answering/research, and the six polymarket_* tools cover closely related prediction-market analysis. Long descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could easily pick the wrong near-duplicate.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are verbs (search_pairs, validate_claim), some noun phrases (latest_token_profiles, entity_profile), and some prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*) cover only subsets. The naming is understandable but stylistically mixed.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far too many for a server labeled Dexscreener, especially since the majority of tools have nothing to do with DEX data. Even if this is intended as an all-in-one data/research server, the count exceeds what the apparent scope justifies and many tools feel bolted on.

Completeness4/5

For the DEX Screener domain, the core surface is covered: pair lookup, token lookup, search, latest profiles, and boosts. The broader Pipeworx/prediction-market side also has strong coverage with memory, subscriptions, entity resolution, and research tools. Minor gaps exist — some tools feel redundant or exploratory — but there are no critical dead-end workflows.

Resources