Skip to main content
Glama

Regulatory Catalysts

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx — Grounded

ask_pipeworx_grounded
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Same routing as ask_pipeworx — picks the right tool from 5,743 across 1500 sources, fills arguments, fetches the data — then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains. Returns {answer, evidence (verbatim quote), confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success, OR an explicit refusal {answer:null, refusal_reason:"not_in_source"|"no_tool_match"|"tool_error"|"data_truncated"|"llm_error"} when the data doesn't directly answer. Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral transparency beyond that: it guarantees evidence as verbatim quotes, enumerates refusal_reason values, and states that only data contained in the tool result may be used. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for high-stakes decisions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, routing behavior, return contract, refusal semantics, use cases, and cost comparison. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so key operational facts are easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the success and refusal return shapes, lists all refusal reasons, explains the grounding guarantee, and gives usage guidance. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description adds context about routing and extraction but does not provide additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific mode: a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer mode for high-stakes reads. It differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing extraction strictly from tool results and explicit refusal behavior, so an agent can distinguish it from its sibling without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and when inventing facts is unacceptable. It also names ask_pipeworx as the preferred alternative for casual lookups and discloses the extra LLM call cost, providing clear selection criteria.

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

All Regulatory Catalysts 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 distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) could cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case and camelCase inconsistently, with no strong verb_noun pattern. Examples include 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'discover_tools' vs 'validate_claim', indicating a lack of naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, including many utility tools (memory, subscriptions) that seem peripheral to the core regulatory/data domain. This suggests scope creep and could overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of regulatory and financial data needs, including company profiles, entity comparison, claim validation, FDA catalysts, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for editing data), but overall it is comprehensive for its stated purpose.

Resources