Skip to main content
Glama

Landprice

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing account requirements, paid-plan depth tiers, latency expectations, the never-invented gaps[] behavior, contradictory findings, and how citations are made resolvable. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long but densely informative, and it front-loads the critical account requirement and core function. There is mild redundancy (depth plan details and contradictions[] are mentioned both in prose and in the schema), but most sentences earn their place by conveying prerequisites, behavior, alternatives, or latency.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return packet: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop fields. It also covers authentication, paid tiers, latency, and semantic excerpting. Agents have everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by providing concrete example questions, clarifying that broad multi-part questions are appropriate, and reinforcing the depth-specific behavior and constraints. This lifts it slightly above baseline.

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 ('research'), a specific resource ('Pipeworx's 1499 STRUCTURED data sources'), and a clear output ('findings packet'). It explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and single-lookup tools, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like ask_pipeworx.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It also names concrete alternatives and conditions: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking-news/current-events topics. This is model usage guidance.

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

All Landprice 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

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries. `ask_pipeworx_beta` is explicitly described as currently identical to `ask_pipeworx`, `discover_tools` overlaps with `suggest_questions`, and the six Polymarket tools (`bet_research`, `polymarket_edges`, `polymarket_arbitrage`, etc.) blur together for opportunity-finding. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case with a verb_noun or noun pattern (`ask_pipeworx`, `list_subscriptions`, `validate_claim`, `recent_changes`). The `polymarket_*` and `ask_pipeworx_*` families follow clear conventions. Minor deviations like `bet_research`, `entity_profile`, and `landprice_points` being noun-first are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a server named 'Landprice' when exactly one tool (`landprice_points`) actually concerns land prices. The vast majority of tools constitute an unrelated general-purpose data research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated and scattershot relative to the server's stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual broad scope revealed by the tools — structured data lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory — the surface is reasonably complete with no obvious dead ends. However, for the 'Landprice' domain implied by the server name, coverage is nearly absent: only Japan is covered, with no other countries, address search, or property-level data.

Resources