Skip to main content
Glama

Jina Reader

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Subscribe to Alerts

subscribe
Idempotent

Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id. Requires a Pipeworx OAuth account (anonymous + BYO cannot persist subscriptions). Supported types: "sec_8k" (8-K filings matching ticker + item codes — e.g. items:["5.02"] = officer change), "polymarket_edge" (Polymarket↔Kalshi cross-venue mispricings — params:{topic:"fed"}), "fred_series" (new FRED observations — params:{series_id:"UNRATE"}). Delivery channels: feed (always on — pull via recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json), and optionally email (set delivery:{email:"you@x.com"}) or sms (delivery:{sms:"+15551234567"} — phone must be verified at /account first; 10/day cap).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesSubscription type.
paramsYesType-specific filter. sec_8k: {ticker:"AAPL", items?:["5.02","1.01"]}. polymarket_edge: {topic:"fed", min_spread_bps?:500}. fred_series: {series_id:"UNRATE"}. patent_grant: {applicant:"Apple Inc."}. clinical_trial: {sponsor?:"Pfizer", condition?:"lung cancer", phase?:"PHASE3"} (sponsor or condition required).
deliveryNoOptional delivery channels in addition to the always-on persistent feed. {email:"you@x.com"} sends a templated alert per fired event. {sms:"+15551234567"} sends an SMS per event — must match the verified phone on the caller's account (verify at https://pipeworx.io/account first; 10/day cap). {webhook:"https://..."} POSTs each event JSON to your endpoint, HMAC-signed — the response includes delivery.webhook_secret (whsec_…) ONCE; verify X-Pipeworx-Signature = sha256 HMAC of "<X-Pipeworx-Timestamp>.<raw body>". Auto-disabled after 10 consecutive failing runs.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explains that each call creates a new subscription and returns an id, but the idempotentHint annotation suggests it should be safe to retry without creating duplicates, which is contradictory. Otherwise, the description provides good context on authentication, delivery channels, rate limits (10/day for SMS), and verification requirements for phone numbers. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only or destructive, so the description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 detailed and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping related details. Overall, it is well-structured for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description covers all relevant aspects: what the tool does, prerequisites, supported types with config, delivery options, rate limits, verification steps, and what the return value is. Given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete and leaves no major gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage, and the tool description significantly enhances the schema's meaning by providing examples for each subscription type's params object, explaining delivery channel options with details like signing for webhooks, and documenting constraints such as the 10/day SMS cap. The description adds critical context not present in the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts which serve different purposes.

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?

The description specifies that a Pipeworx OAuth account is required, excluding anonymous and BYO users. It also provides guidance on when to use this tool versus pulling data via recent_alerts or the GET endpoint, and lists supported subscription types with examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like polymarket_edge_tracker or other data-fetching tools.

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

All Jina Reader 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and specialized tools like entity_profile or validate_claim that can answer similar questions. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, with most using a verb_noun structure (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions or chaotic naming.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool has a distinct purpose, the number is borderline for a coherent set and could be streamlined, especially given the overlapping functionality.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of query and analysis tasks, including data lookup, comparison, betting research, memory, and subscriptions. However, there are notable gaps (e.g., no update/delete for most data, no user management) and some tools seem out of place (e.g., generate_llms_txt).

Resources