Skip to main content
Glama

Feodotracker

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses experimental candidate routing, the current lack of an active candidate, the identical response shape, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This is rich, accurate context.

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 dense but front-loaded with the key identity and behavior. Each sentence adds useful context, though the parenthetical retirement date and the 'Falls back to nothing' phrasing could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 universal router with no output schema, this is complete: it explains the beta nature, the live-testing mechanism, current behavior, and the guarantee that it is fully operational. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and understand the experimental caveat.

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 schema already documents the question parameter and all aliases. The description merely restates that arguments match ask_pipeworx, adding no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and gives a concrete function for an agent to act on.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a direct when-to-use instruction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also mentions that results are compared to the stable router. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded or state exclusions for when not to use it.

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

All Feodotracker 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same conceptual space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all answer 'what can this server do' or 'look this up' in overlapping ways. The Polymarket suite (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) also create boundary confusion despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mixed bag: some tools are imperative verbs (check_ip, forget, remember, validate_claim), some are bare nouns or adjectives (list, recent, aggressive), and many are noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). No consistent verb_noun or domain-prefix pattern holds across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly named Feodotracker, whose core blocklist surface is only four tools (list, recent, aggressive, check_ip). The rest is a sprawling collection of unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscription, and utility features that would be better split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The core blocklist domain is minimally covered: you can list, filter by family/status, check an IP, and see recent additions, which covers basic read-only use. However, there are notable gaps and dead ends, such as no historical lookup beyond recent hours and no per-IP detail beyond membership, while the bundled Pipeworx/Polymarket features are thorough but make the overall surface feel scattershot.

Resources