Skip to main content
Glama

Market Recap

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token return-and-redeem flow, that the team reads digests daily, and that feedback doesn't count against quota. These are material behaviors not captured in the minimal 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 fairly long but information-dense; each sentence adds practical guidance. Minor redundancy (the 'ONLY for tools served by this connection' point is repeated) prevents a 5.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with nested context and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and content guidance. It fully compensates for the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters at 100%. The description adds valuable semantics on claim_token usage ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) with no other arguments') and advises describing issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, which aids correct parameter filling.

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 opens with a clear verb-object statement ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and distinguishes this from all sibling research tools by focusing solely on feedback about Pipeworx itself.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to (tools from other MCP servers), including a fallback instruction to file with that server instead. This is exemplary when-to-use guidance.

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

All Market Recap 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple AI visibility tools, ask_pipeworx vs deep_research). Agents will have difficulty choosing the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of styles (snake_case, descriptive phrases) without a consistent verb_noun pattern. For example, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'bet_research' have different naming conventions. This inconsistency makes it harder for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server. Many tools could be merged (e.g., multiple polymarket tools). The count feels excessive for the scope, causing cognitive load and potential selection errors.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains (prediction markets, company data, fact-checking, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., limited entity types for company/drug only). Redundancy in some areas makes the set feel bloated rather than complete.

Resources