Skip to main content
Glama

emojihub

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 1495 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 5,714 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding auth requirements, paid tier for 'thorough,' parallel facet decomposition, output shape (findings packet, gaps[], contradictions[], hop, citation_uri), the no-invention guarantee, and latency. It even notes citation_uri is present only when the source emits a resolvable URI.

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 definition is exhaustive and each sentence carries a distinct behavioral detail, but it is a long wall of text and opens with account requirements before stating its purpose. It could front-load the core function and trim repeated depth semantics.

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 compensates by describing the returned findings packet, citations, gaps, contradictions, and excerpts, plus latency and auth. An agent has everything it needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add useful context—good question examples and the behavior difference between quick/standard/thorough—but much of the depth explanation repeats the schema's own depth parameter description.

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?

Names the operation explicitly: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1494 STRUCTURED data sources...' and contrasts it with ask_pipeworx. The verb+resource is distinct among siblings, and the 'NOT open-web search' qualifier prevents confusion with search-like tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and then gives when-not-to-use guidance: single lookups, breaking/current-news, and unsigned-in users should use ask_pipeworx. This is strong routing guidance with named alternatives.

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

All emojihub 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 clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the numerous Pipeworx query and prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_fill_risk). Descriptions help differentiate them, so the ambiguity is minor.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, validate_claim), phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and standalone nouns (pipeworx_feedback). While readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less cohesive.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, with many highly specialized prediction market and Pipeworx management tools. The server's name 'emojihub' suggests a narrow focus, but the actual scope is much broader, making the count feel somewhat inflated for its apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: factual data retrieval, company profiles, comparisons, claim validation, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and emoji lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for simple web search), but overall coverage is comprehensive.

Resources