Skip to main content
Glama

Open Contracting

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 1498 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 5,735 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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses auth requirements and paid-tier restrictions, parallel decomposition, exact output shape (evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + citation + gaps[]/contradictions[]), the 'never invented' gap behavior, semantic excerpting, citation fetchability, and expected latency. This is rich behavioral context the annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loads the most critical constraints (account required, alternative for unsigned users) before the core behavior, and almost every sentence carries distinct information. It loses one point because a few details, such as contradictions[] and second-hop behavior, repeat what the input schema already states.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly with the findings packet, gaps[], contradictions[], hop, and citation_uri fields. Combined with annotations and the rich parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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?

The schema already describes both parameters in detail (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning: depth:'thorough' needs a paid plan, latency varies by depth, and realistic question examples clarify what 'broad/multi-part' means. It goes beyond the schema, though with some overlap.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1498 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call, with decomposition into facets routed to 5,732 tools in parallel. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from both open-web search and the sibling tool ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives: use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/current-news topics, or when not signed in. No ambiguity remains about which sibling to choose.

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

All Open Contracting 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve query/discovery purposes; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all target prediction-market opportunity detection. ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, making the distinction essentially invisible without deep description parsing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix domain prefixes (oc_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), action verbs (validate_claim, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and plain nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes). Most are readable snake_case, but there is no uniform verb_noun or domain-first convention, so the set feels stylistically fragmented rather than patterned.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a heavy surface for a server ostensibly named 'Open Contracting' — only 4 of the 35 tools actually relate to open contracting data. The rest sprawl across general data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, and AI visibility, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused relative to the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the open-contracting domain implied by the server name, the surface is incomplete: there is coverage metadata, search, recent releases, and process history, but no direct retrieval of a single release by ID and no broader OCDS exploration tools. As a general data/Pipeworx toolkit the coverage is wide, but the severe mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set creates a significant gap between expectation and capability.

Resources