Skip to main content
Glama

Gaming Feeds

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 1499 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 5,738 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description goes far beyond annotations: account/plan gating, parallel decomposition into facets, return packet shape, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, fetchable citations, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. It also reinforces readOnly/idempotent behavior by noting nothing is invented or mutated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Dense but every sentence earns its place; auth gates, sibling routing, output semantics, depth behavior, and latency are covered without fluff. Important constraints are front-loaded before implementation details.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully describes the return contract (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps, contradictions, hop). Combined with rich annotations and complete schema, no critical operational information is missing.

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?

Schema covers both params at 100%, so baseline 3; description adds value by explaining depth tiers' operational behavior and the paid requirement for thorough. It also ties question wording to decomposition suitability.

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?

Description clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's 1499 structured data sources, decomposed and routed in parallel. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use ('single lookup', 'not signed in', 'breaking/current news'), naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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

All Gaming Feeds 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research—all of which route questions to the same underlying catalog. The polymarket_* family also has several opportunity-scanning tools (edges, arbitrage, bet_research) that agents could confuse without reading the long descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 34 tool names use lowercase snake_case with a clear verb-first or noun-descriptive pattern (list_feeds, read_feed, remember, resolve_entity, polymarket_arbitrage). Even compound names like ai_visibility_check and ask_pipeworx_grounded follow a predictable, consistent style. No mixed conventions or camelCase deviations.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far more than the apparent 'Gaming Feeds' scope suggests—only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed actually relate to gaming feeds. The rest form a sprawling data-research and prediction-market suite, creating a severe mismatch between the server name and its actual tool surface.

Completeness4/5

Viewed as a general Pipeworx data-access platform, the tool set is quite complete: question routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, alerts, feed reading, and tool discovery are all covered. The only notable gaps are feed management (no create/update/delete for custom feeds) and a few odd add-ons like generate_llms_txt that feel outside the core domain.

Resources