Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Regulations

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 1517 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 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How 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)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses rich behavior: parallel tool routing, findings packet fields, gaps[] for unanswered facets, 'never invented' wording, hop field, resolvable citation_uri, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 densely informative; nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant detail. It is front-loaded with account requirements and the primary alternative. Slight redundancy in repeated ask_pipeworx mentions keeps it from a 5, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps[], contradictions[] and hop field. It also covers prerequisites, depth tiers, latency, and when-not-to-use, making it complete for an agent to invoke this 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 already covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description adds value by elaborating on depth behavior — 'standard re-angles unanswered gaps', 'thorough additionally chases the best leads' — and by clarifying the question parameter accepts broad/multi-part natural language, which the schema only implies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' with parallel decomposition into facets. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by saying 'this is NOT open-web search' and naming when ask_pipeworx is the right tool instead.

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 routing guidance: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead', and 'For BREAKING or CURRENT news... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also declares its best-fit use case: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'.

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

All Sec Regulations 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both scan for betting opportunities, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but an agent must read carefully to distinguish the meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) from each other.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first or domain-prefixed noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, sec_regulations_search, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, and sec_regulation vs sec_regulations_search is slightly inconsistent, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', and most are unrelated to the server's stated name 'Sec Regulations'—only sec_regulation and sec_regulations_search fit that label. While each tool has a defined purpose, the set feels like several distinct servers (research, betting, memory, subscriptions) crammed into one.

Completeness3/5

For a general data-research platform, the surface is broad: Q&A routers, entity resolution/profiles, comparisons, validation, memory, subscriptions, and domain-specific tools. But the SEC-regulation focus implied by the server name is severely under-served, and there's no direct tool to fetch a raw document by citation/URI outside of the ask_pipeworx router. The Polymarket cluster is over-built relative to other data domains.

Resources