Skip to main content
Glama

Ens

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: sign-in requirements, thorough requiring a paid plan, parallel routing, findings packet fields, explicit gaps[] that are never invented, semantic excerpting of large records, and expected latency. It also explains depth-specific behaviors. 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with critical account requirements and alternative routing, and it is reasonably sized for the tool's complexity. However, it includes a nonsensical artifact at the end, 'Wait, then there's a strange section: "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead..."', which repeats prior content and disrupts clarity, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a complex tool with no output schema: it explains the research process, returned findings packet fields, gap handling, contradictions, depth modes, latency, authentication, and when to use an alternative. An agent has all needed information to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers both parameters with high detail, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: depth:"thorough" requires a paid plan, and the sign-in state affects tool selection. This supplements the schema-level definitions with important operational context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1495 STRUCTURED data sources' in 'ONE call', decomposing the question into facets and routing to 5,714 tools in parallel. It also distinguishes itself from open-web search and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups, so an agent can tell it apart from 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', and when not to: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'. It also gives concrete examples, so selection guidance is unambiguous.

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

All Ens 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly defined, distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by use case (casual vs. high-stakes), and the prediction market tools each cover a specific function (research, edge detection, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, cross-venue spreads). Detailed descriptions eliminate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but a few use noun_noun or adjective_noun forms (e.g., entity_profile, recent_alerts). The naming is generally predictable and readable, with minor deviations from a strict pattern.

Tool Count3/5

The server offers 32 tools, which is above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. However, the vast domain (financials, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions, etc.) justifies the count. It is on the heavy side but still manageable with clear organization.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for the apparent domain: exploration (discover_tools, suggest_questions), identifier resolution (resolve_entity), data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim), prediction market analysis (full suite), memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), and extras (ENS, dependency scan, AI visibility). No obvious gaps exist.

Resources