Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi Stats

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?

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: account requirements, paid plan threshold for 'thorough,' parallel decomposition, gap[] fields, contradictions[], latency expectations, semantic excerpting, and the guarantee that citations are fetchable. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 information-dense, and the most critical operational constraints—account requirement, fallback alternative, and the structured-data scope—are front-loaded. Some sentences are run-on and pack many behaviors together, but every sentence contributes actionable detail for a complex tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, two-parameter schema, and lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns, how it behaves across depth levels, latency, authentication, paid tiers, when results will be empty, and how citations resolve. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining depth levels in terms of hops, gap recovery, and paid tier requirements, and by noting that broad/multi-part questions are acceptable for the question parameter. It mostly complements rather than merely repeats 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, making its purpose unmistakable.

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,' and explicitly names alternatives with conditions: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx.' It also states the prerequisite of being signed in and when to fall back to ask_pipeworx.

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

All Pypi Stats 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
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all performing similar data lookup functions. Additionally, multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have overlapping purposes. An agent would struggle to choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern and use clear domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, python_) and verb_noun structure (e.g., validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor inconsistency exists with tools like 'overall' not following verb_noun, but overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but justifiable given the broad array of capabilities (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). However, the server name 'Pypi Stats' suggests a narrow focus, making the count feel excessive for that purpose. The actual scope is wide, so the count is borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

For its actual scope as a data query and analysis platform, the tool set is quite complete: it covers company profiles, comparisons, claim verification, trend analysis, and prediction market insights. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for most data types), but core query and lookup operations are well covered.

Resources