Skip to main content
Glama

Eol

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations: it discloses account and paid-tier requirements, parallel facet routing, the exact findings packet fields, explicit gaps[] that are never invented, contradictions[] behavior, semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, citation URI fetchability conditions, and latency expectations. It aligns with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, with no contradiction.

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 logically structured: auth/tier, core behavior, when-to-use, depth semantics, output details, and latency. Nearly every sentence carries non-schema value, though the depth and contradiction behavior is partially repeated from the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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 present, the description fully inventories the return shape, gap and contradiction semantics, citation URI guarantee, auth/tier prerequisites, and latency. For a complex research orchestration tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its results.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the depth property description is nearly as detailed as the prose, covering hop counts, gap recovery, and contradictions. The description adds useful examples and the paid-tier note, but it does not materially expand the meaning of either parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The high-coverage baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call', and explains that it decomposes questions and routes facets to 5,743 tools. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can separate it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly names when to use this tool: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', and gives direct alternatives: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and for breaking/current-news topics 'prefer ask_pipeworx'. It even handles the unsigned-in case by routing to ask_pipeworx. These exclusions and alternatives are unambiguous.

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

All Eol 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that eliminate ambiguity. Even similar tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by use case (casual, high-stakes, multi-faceted). The Polymarket and EOL tool suites are internally distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming mostly follows snake_case with verb_noun or prefix patterns, but there is inconsistency: e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'bet_research' vs 'deep_research'. The Polymarket and memory tool groups are internally consistent, but overall the server mixes conventions across sub-domains.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side, but the server covers multiple domains (EOL taxonomy, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions). The count is borderline excessive for a focused server; meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions help, but the sheer number can overwhelm an agent.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many data sources and analysis tasks well, but the server name 'Eol' implies a biological taxonomy focus, which is underserved (only 4 tools). For the broader implicit purpose of a research assistant, there are notable gaps like open-web search, image analysis, or document management.

Resources