Skip to main content
Glama

Pipeworx

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: latency expectations, gap[] reporting with no invention, contradiction detection, semantic excerpting, hop fields, and citation resolvability. The annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description enriches that with operational behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded with the critical account requirement and fallback. It is long and has some repetition around citations and gaps, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 fully compensates by detailing the findings packet, evidence, confidence, sources, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and latency. An agent has enough information to set expectations and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents question and depth. The description adds value by explaining depth behavior in operational terms (gap recovery, lead chasing, contradictions) and giving latency expectations, going beyond the enum descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources, with decomposition and parallel routing. It clearly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and open-web search, so an agent can tell what this tool does and is not.

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?

Use is explicitly scoped: best for broad/multi-part questions, while single lookups and breaking/current-news topics should go to ask_pipeworx. The description also covers authentication prerequisites and the fallback when not signed in, leaving no ambiguity about when to call this tool.

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

All Pipeworx 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the central data access tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, and compare_entities. However, the multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and the similar ask_pipeworx variants could cause confusion, especially for an agent quickly scanning options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, search_packs, resolve_entity). Some deviations exist, such as pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage (starting with a noun), and single-word names like forget and remember, but overall the style is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server feels overly heavy. While the broad domain (structured data across many sources) justifies a large number, the count exceeds the recommended 15–25 range, making it unwieldy for agents to navigate efficiently without extensive discovery.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains: company financials, drugs, economics, prediction markets, weather, and even MCP discovery. There are few obvious gaps given the stated purpose, though some areas like social media or international data could be added. Overall, the surface is well-rounded.

Resources