Skip to main content
Glama

econdata

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: persistence terms (24 hours for anonymous, persistent for authenticated), scoping by identifier, and the key-value storage model. It doesn't explicitly state overwrite behavior, but idempotency covers that. There is 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, when to use, storage semantics, and related tools. There is no fluff, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action. It conveys substantial information efficiently.

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?

For a simple storage tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: persistence, scoping, examples, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (key and value) with descriptive examples. The description adds limited extra semantics, such as the scoped by identifier and examples of valid keys/values, but this is marginal since the schema already explains the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later.' It specifies the action (save) and the resource (key-value pair). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly mentioning 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete,' which clarifies its role among siblings.

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 guidance on when to use: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' with concrete examples. It also directs to alternatives (recall and forget) and explains the persistence behavior for authenticated versus anonymous sessions, leaving no ambiguity about usage context.

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

All econdata 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions. Some overlap exists, especially among research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and prediction market tools, but boundaries are clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_cpi, list_subscriptions). A few deviations exist (e.g., forget, recall, pipeworx_feedback using a prefix), but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. While it covers many domains, the high number makes the set feel heavy and harder to navigate, warranting a score of 2 according to calibration.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is comprehensive for its broad scope, covering economic data, company research, prediction markets, and utilities. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing explicit GDP or stock quote tools), but the powerful ask_pipeworx meta-tool fills many gaps.

Resources