Skip to main content
Glama

Funcheap

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses account and paid-plan requirements, latency ranges, gap[]/contradictions[] behavior, citation_uri resolvability conditions, and semantic excerpting of large records. Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial operational context beyond those hints.

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 and front-loaded with account requirements and sibling routing, and nearly every caveat earns its place. It is slightly long and repeats some depth-level details already present in the schema, so it falls just short of a perfect conciseness 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 compensates by explaining the findings packet, citation field behavior, gaps[], contradictions[], latency, and authentication constraints. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool, how to set parameters, and what to expect in the response.

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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds practical selection detail, such as the paid-plan requirement for depth:'thorough' and how each depth level affects gap recovery and iteration. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions without being redundant.

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?

States a precise action: grounded multi-source research across 1500 structured data sources in one call, with decomposition and parallel routing. Explicitly contrasts with open-web search and names sibling ask_pipeworx, making the tool's function and scope immediately clear.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions; for a single lookup use ask_pipeworx; for world-knowledge/current-events/news prefer ask_pipeworx or ask_pipeworx_beta. It also covers the sign-in exclusion and explains depth-level iteration behavior.

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

All Funcheap 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are distinct (event search, subscriptions, memory, Polymarket arbitrage, data lookups), but ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage have overlapping purposes around competitive research and prediction-market edge-finding. The detailed descriptions disambiguate them, though an agent could confuse polymarket_edges with polymarket_arbitrage.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive and consistent: search_events, event, categories, tags are aligned; ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, entity_profile follow a similar pattern. However, polymarket_* tools have an odd mix of `polymarket_arbitrage`, `polymarket_fill_risk`, and `polymarket_edge_tracker`, and discover_tools/recent_alerts/recent_changes are consistent, mostly. Naming is quite consistent overall with minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

At 35 tools, the count is heavier than typical MCP servers, but it reflects a broad service (Funcheap data + Pipeworx data platform + pred markets). Still, plenty of tools serve the same primary purpose (polymarket_, ask_pipeworx variants) so some pruning would improve the surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface appears complete for its domain: search/retrieve events, category/tag navigation, memory, subscriptions (create/list/cancel/pull), data lookups, entity resolution, comparisons, profiles, edge scanning, and feedback. Minor gaps include no direct 'update' on events (but events are static), and no pricing fetch tool separate from event text, though body text covers it.

Resources