Skip to main content
Glama

Sistat Si

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 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses auth and paid-tier requirements, parallel routing to 5,724 tools, the gaps[] policy ('never invented'), citation_uri fetchability conditions, hop fields, contradictions[] availability, semantic excerpting, and 15-90s latency. No statement contradicts the 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?

Long, but every sentence carries distinct operational information: auth, fallback, scope, output shape, depth behavior, citation guarantee, and latency. It is front-loaded with the account gate and fallback, though the wall-of-text format could be tightened or bulleted.

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 still specifies the findings packet, gaps[], contradictions[], citation resolution, and timing. Combined with rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke deep_research correctly and to set expectations about cost, latency, and output.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is met. The description adds meaningful depth semantics ('standard' re-angles unanswered gaps, 'thorough' chases the best leads) and clarifies that the question can be broad/multi-part. This exceeds the schema, though it doesn't add strict format constraints.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call' and explicitly frames itself as 'NOT open-web search.' It also names the sibling ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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?

Gives selection criteria both ways: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data,' 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx,' and for BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS topics, 'prefer ask_pipeworx.' It also handles the signed-out fallback, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Sistat Si 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 clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as between discover_tools and suggest_questions. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx, forget), camelCase (discoverTools, suggestQuestions), and underscores (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities). No predictable pattern.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the broad domain (finance, pharma, prediction markets, etc.) partly justifies it. However, some tools like forget, remember, recall seem generic and could be separated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of functionalities: visibility checks, pipeworx queries, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and more. Minor gaps may exist in real-time data or specific niche sources.

Resources