Skip to main content
Glama

Polygon Io

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 1499 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 5,738 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 annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals meaningful behaviors: account/tier requirements, parallel routing to 5,724 tools, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[], hop fields, citation fetchability, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. It also cautions about empty gaps[] on non-catalog topics. This is rich and non-redundant.

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 appropriately so for a complex tool with three depth modes, account requirements, and output expectations. Critical caveats are front-loaded (account requirement, not open-web search, alternative tool). Some redundancy with the schema's depth descriptions exists, but every paragraph adds distinct 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop fields. It also covers prerequisites, latency expectations, and limitations. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: question is explicitly natural language and broad/multi-part is fine, and depth values get contextual framing like 'single hop' and 'gap recovery.' It doesn't simply restate 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it 'researches' across Pipeworx's 1497 structured data sources in one call, and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by framing itself as multi-facet structured research versus a single lookup.

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 guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data.' It also names alternatives and exclusions: use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup, for breaking/colloquial current news, or if not signed in. This is clear, actionable routing.

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

All Polygon Io 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping purposes (all answer questions via a universal router), with only subtle distinctions (beta version, grounded mode). Additionally, many tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity all pull SEC/company data, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research all relate to prediction markets, creating potential confusion. However, each tool does have a somewhat distinct purpose and detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so it's not extreme overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are mostly lowercase with underscores (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'compare_entities', 'resolve_entity'), but there's a mix of verb-first (bulk_splits, list_subscriptions) and noun-first (data_types, get_quote) patterns. Also 'aggregates' and 'grouped_daily' both fetch bars but have different naming styles. The naming is inconsistent with no clear uniform pattern, and some names are vague like 'helpers' or 'utility-*'.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is quite heavy for a single MCP server, exceeding the typical 15-25 range for 'too many'. While the server aggregates many different domains (Polygon stocks, Pipeworx data, Polymarket, npm, etc.), the sheer number makes it overwhelming for an agent to discover and select the right tool. Many tools are meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) that add complexity rather than mapping to a clear domain.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a huge range of operations: stock data (retrieve, search, details), prediction markets (arbitrage, edges, research, fill risk), entity resolution, subscriptions, memory, and meta-tools. There are some gaps like no obvious tool for modifying stock data (not expected) and the Polymarket side lacks a tool for placing actual trades or managing positions. But overall the surface is quite complete for a comprehensive data/research server.

Resources