Skip to main content
Glama

Mempool Space

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?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses account/paid-tier requirements, parallel decomposition into facets, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradiction[] scanning for standard/thorough, resolvable citation URIs, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No contradiction with 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?

Dense and front-loaded with the most actionable warnings (account, alternative tool), and nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It is longer than average, with some multi-clause complexity and repeated emphasis, so it is not maximally concise — but it is well organized for an agent-facing spec.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies the findings packet shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, hop field, gaps[], contradictions[]), prerequisites, latency, and fallback behavior. An agent has enough context to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect back.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description still adds value: it explains what each depth level means (quick=3 facets/single hop, standard=3 with gap recovery + contradictions, thorough=6 with iterative lead-chasing + contradictions) and the paid restriction on thorough. This is meaningful semantic enrichment beyond the JSON schema.

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, differentiated behavior: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call', explicitly distinguishing itself from open-web search and from siblings like ask_pipeworx. This is much more than a restatement of the name.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking/live-news topics; use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions. This satisfies the when-to-use and when-not-to-use test better than most definitions.

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

All Mempool Space 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes two unrelated domains — Bitcoin mempool explorer tools and the much larger Pipeworx data-query platform — and within the Pipeworx half several tools route to the same 5,743-tool catalog (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact behavioral duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and the polymarket_* family has fuzzy boundaries (arbitrage vs edges vs fill_risk, with fill-checking living in both polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_fill_risk), so an agent must read long descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and there are recognizable sub-families (get_* Bitcoin lookups, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), but conventions are mixed across the whole set: bare-noun state tools (block_height, hashrate, mempool_stats, mining_pools) sit beside verb_noun actions (get_block, list_subscriptions), and prefix placement is inconsistent (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_trending/pipeworx_feedback). The naming is readable but not predictable enough to guess a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a coherent server, and the count is inflated by bundling two unrelated products under a server named after only the smaller half (~10 Bitcoin tools vs ~31 Pipeworx tools). Many Pipeworx tools are convenience wrappers around one universal router, adding surface area without adding genuinely new capabilities.

Completeness3/5

Each half is internally workable: the Bitcoin side covers blocks, transactions, addresses, fees, hashrate, and pools, while the Pipeworx side provides broad query, research, subscription, and memory lifecycles. However, there are notable gaps relative to each domain (no block-list/fee-history endpoints on the explorer side; no direct per-source CRUD on the data side), and no single coherent domain is fully served because the server's stated identity matches only a fraction of its tools.

Resources