Skip to main content
Glama

Ebi Ols

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only convey readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/not-destructive; the description adds a wealth of behavioral context: account/paid-plan requirements, findings-packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation), explicit gaps[] and contradictions[], hop and citation_uri semantics, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No annotation contradiction; the openWorldHint is not contradicted by the 'NOT open-web search' emphasis since structured external sources still count as open-world.

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 every sentence earns its place, covering auth, alternatives, purpose, behavior, citation mechanics, excerpting, and latency without tautology or filler. It is front-loaded with the account gate before the purpose statement, which prioritizes a critical constraint but slightly delays the core what-does-it-do sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of documenting the return value, and it does so well: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop and citation_uri behavior, and excerpting strategy are all covered. It also covers depth semantics, authentication prerequisites, and expected latency; the only minor missing piece is a concrete JSON example of the findings packet.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaning by detailing depth semantics (quick=3 facets single hop, standard adds gap recovery + contradictions, thorough=6 facets with iterative hop) and clarifying that question is natural language and broad/multi-part is fine. These additions go beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' and explicitly clarifies it is NOT open-web search. It also differentiates from ask_pipeworx by positioning deep_research for broad/multi-part questions and by naming the one-call parallel decomposition behavior.

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 ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), when-not-to-use (single lookup, breaking/colloquial current-news), and names the alternative tool (ask_pipeworx) in multiple conditions. Even covers the signed-in prerequisite and routes otherwise to a fallback.

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

All Ebi Ols 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially among Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded), betting research tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread), and memory tools (remember, recall, forget). An agent could easily select the wrong tool. Additionally, tools like 'discover_tools', 'search', and 'search_within' have unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case (e.g., 'entity_profile', 'validate_claim'), but there are inconsistencies with single-word verbs like 'forget', 'recall', 'remember', 'subscribe', 'unsubscribe', and the mixed pattern of 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'pipeworx_feedback'. Overall, the naming is somewhat consistent but not fully predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server has a high but not extreme count. However, the tools span multiple unrelated domains (ontologies, financial data, betting, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), making the server feel like a collection of disparate features rather than a focused toolset. This reduces the appropriateness of the count for a single server.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has significant gaps. For example, ontology tools lack create/update/delete operations; betting tools only provide research and analysis but no placement; memory tools allow save/recall/delete but not update; and there is no tool for user authentication or account management despite subscription features. The server covers many areas but none completely.

Resources