Skip to main content
Glama

Idf Events

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent and non-destructive, but the description goes far beyond by disclosing account/paid-tier requirements, parallel tool routing, gap[] semantics ('never invented'), timing (15-90s), depth hops, and conditional citation_uri fetchability. Operational behavior an agent would otherwise have to infer or discover at runtime is spelled out.

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?

Long but information-dense; every sentence carries an operational fact such as auth gate, alternative routing, depth behavior, timing, or citation constraints. It is front-loaded with the most critical gating requirement (account) and flows logically from capability to use cases to edge cases.

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 covers the findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop, and citation_uri resolvability, as well as the failure mode for current-news topics. After reading it, an agent knows what to send, what to expect, and when to choose an alternative.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: depth's hop/contradiction behavior, facet counts (quick=3, standard=3, thorough=6), and clarification that question should be natural language where 'broad/multi-part is fine'. That meaningfully exceeds the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources', and describes the decomposition/routing/result packet. It explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and single-lookup ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without needing to inspect their 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?

Provides explicit selection criteria: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and for breaking/current-news topics 'prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also gates on account state ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx'), which is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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

All Idf Events 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple Polymarket analysis tools, and several entity-focused tools). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool for tasks like querying data or analyzing prediction markets.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). A few names like ai_visibility_check are slightly less conventional, but overall the naming is consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools covering a broad range of data services, the count is on the high side but still manageable. However, the server name 'Idf Events' is misleading, as only one tool relates to events in Paris.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for the Pipeworx platform: data querying, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, but most user needs are addressed.

Resources