Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

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 1497 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 5,724 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: findings packet shape, gaps[] and contradictions[], citation_uri resolvability, semantic excerpting, hop field, expected latency, and depth-tier behavior. 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?

The description is long but high-density and front-loaded with the most critical constraints (account requirement, alternatives, core scope). For a tool with this behavioral complexity, nearly every sentence adds distinct value, though a few points are restated (gaps, contradictions, ask_pipeworx routing).

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?

Complete for a research tool with no output schema: covers prerequisites, scope, exclusions, alternatives, return-value structure, citation behavior, latency, and depth-mode differences. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including enum semantics for depth. The description adds context like 'decomposition is the point' and maps depth tiers to gap-recovery behavior, but largely reinforces rather than extends the 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?

Describes a specific verb and resource: grounded multi-source research over 1497 structured data sources, decomposed into facets and routed in parallel. Explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making its niche unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: broad/multi-part structured-data questions vs single lookups via ask_pipeworx vs breaking/current-news topics via ask_pipeworx. Also states the account/plan prerequisite and names a working alternative for unsigned-in users.

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

All Odds Api 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct scopes, and the long cross-referencing descriptions help a lot. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx by the server's own description, and the polymarket_* family plus ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping boundaries that could mislead an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern like get_odds, list_sports, resolve_entity, and subscribe. A few exceptions such as odds_api_quota, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, and recall break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Odds Api'. Many tools are meta-platform utilities — memory, feedback, trending, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation — that have no obvious connection to an odds API and make the surface hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, get_scores, quota tracking, and subscriptions form a coherent read/monitor workflow. Minor gaps exist — no historical odds or a single-event detail endpoint — but agents can complete core odds research and monitoring tasks without dead ends.

Resources