Skip to main content
Glama

Openligadb

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds materially useful behavioral detail: paid-tier requirement, gap[] semantics with 'never invented', contradictions[] behavior, hop fields, citation_uri only when actually fetchable, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 front-loaded with the most critical facts (account requirement, alternative tool, core behavior) and almost every sentence adds operational value. It is long but justified for a complex tool with no output schema; the stray 'It is a NEW rounded ...' fragment and some repetition of depth details prevent 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop metadata, citation URIs, latency, and data-source coverage. The agent gets enough context to select the tool, understand its return shape, and estimate cost/time.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the depth-tier semantics already present in the enum schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning; the main contribution is account/tier context, which is behavioral rather than parameter-specific.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources in one call. It explicitly distinguishes deep_research from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, and it describes the full flow of decomposition, parallel routing, and findings-packet return.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup, and use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It even names the alternative tool, so the agent can route correctly.

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

All Openligadb 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions differentiating similar tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. However, some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, as both serve as universal routers with only minor routing improvements.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), others use lowercase single words (forget, recall), and some use camelCase (bet_research, deep_research). This mix of conventions makes the naming scheme unpredictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server covers a wide range of data sources, but the count feels slightly heavy for the apparent scope. Several tools serve meta-purposes (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or specialized functions (polymarket_arbitrage), adding to the complexity.

Completeness4/5

The tool set offers comprehensive coverage for financial, economic, drug, and news data, including comparison and grounding capabilities. However, the football-related tools are limited to German leagues, leaving a minor gap for other sports or regions.

Resources