Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing decomposition into facets, parallel routing to 5,743 tools, gap[] arrays, contradiction[] detection, semantic excerpting, citation_uri resolvability, latency expectations (15-60s / ~90s), and the account/paid-plan requirement. It also explicitly commits to not inventing findings ('never invented'). No contradiction with 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 appropriately sized for a tool with multiple depth modes, a prerequisite, routing logic, and rich output behavior. It front-loads the most decision-critical facts (account required, use ask_pipeworx instead if not signed in) and then progresses through definition, best-use cases, exclusions, depth semantics, and output details. A minor redundancy exists (repeated mentions of contradictions and gaps), but every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers all invocation-critical context: prerequisites, authentication URL, fallback routing, depth semantics, expected latency, output packet contents, citation guarantees, gap handling, and contradiction behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and with what depth setting.

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% with both question and depth documented. The description adds behavioral meaning to the depth enum: quick=single hop, standard=gap-recovery hop plus contradictions, thorough=iterative lead-chasing plus contradictions, and latency implications. That is genuine value beyond the schema's dry parameter 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 opens with a precise, verb-driven definition: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is and what it 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx.' It also states the account prerequisite and the fallback if not signed in, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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

All Pypi 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among the polymarket tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) and the ask_pipeworx variants. The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent might still misselect in those groups.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations exist, such as 'remember' vs 'recall' and the mixed use of verbs and nouns (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'polymarket_arbitrage'), but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool serves a specific purpose, the sheer number may be overwhelming, and some subsets (like the 7 polymarket tools) could potentially be consolidated. Still, the scope justifies many of them.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of functionalities: Python package management, company research, prediction markets, monitoring, memory, and data queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing subscriptions), but the surface is generally comprehensive and well-rounded.

Resources