Skip to main content
Glama

Horizons Nasa

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds rich behavioral context: parallel tool routing, findings packet structure with verbatim evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] for standard and thorough depths, semantic excerpting, citation_uri resolvability, and latency expectations. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

Every sentence carries relevant information and the description is appropriately sized for a complex tool, but it is a dense unbroken paragraph. The core purpose is not front-loaded; account requirements and the signup link appear before the main 'what it does' statement. It would benefit from bullets or clearer separation of concerns.

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, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop fields, and citation_uri behavior. It also covers prerequisites, alternatives, depth variants, timing, and data-source scope. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats depth behavior and adds examples of good questions, but it does not materially extend the meaning of the question or depth parameters beyond what the input schema already documents. This is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 names a specific verb, resource, and mechanism: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' that 'decomposes your question into focused facets' and routes them in parallel. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'. It further warns that breaking/current-news topics should go to ask_pipeworx because deep_research 'returns mostly empty gaps[]' for topics outside its structured catalog.

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

All Horizons Nasa 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate overlapping capabilities (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs bet_research). No two tools appear redundant; even similar prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have specific scopes.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Single-word exceptions (ephemeris, lookup, observers, recall, remember, vectors) are common short verbs and do not break the pattern. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server is a comprehensive data platform covering multiple domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback). The count is justified given the breadth; it feels slightly heavy but not bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for a data/research platform: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), entity resolution (resolve_entity), lookups (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), comparison (compare_entities), validation (validate_claim), prediction-market operations (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and meta/feedback (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). No obvious gaps for typical workflows.

Resources