Skip to main content
Glama

Speedrun

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 1497 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 5,724 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?

Even though annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: account/auth prerequisites, parallel decomposition across 5,724 tools, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] on standard/thorough, fetchable citation_uri semantics, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No stated behavior 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?

The description is long, but it front-loads the critical prerequisite (account required) and core purpose before alternatives and caveats. Most sentences earn their place for a complex tool, though some depth details overlap with the input schema's enum description and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop and citation_uri. It also covers alternatives, account requirements, depth behavior, and latency, leaving no important calling detail unspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the practical effect of depth values (gap recovery and follow-up leads), the paid-tier constraint on 'thorough,' and examples of valid broad questions. This pushes it above baseline, though the schema already documents most parameter mechanics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the sibling ask_pipeworx by targeting broad/multi-part structured-data questions.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data,' and direct exclusions like 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx' for breaking/current-news topics. It even covers the not-signed-in fallback case.

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

All Speedrun 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in data querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, etc.) and prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). Detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the number of similar-sounding tools increases the chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names show mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (e.g., find_user, list_subscriptions), others are noun_verb (e.g., entity_profile, bet_research), and there are prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. While subgroups are internally consistent, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools spanning speedrun.com queries, Pipeworx data access, memory management, subscriptions, and prediction markets, the server bundles multiple domains. The scope is too broad for a coherent single server; splitting into separate servers would improve usability.

Completeness4/5

Within each domain (speedrun.com, Pipeworx, Polymarket), the tool set covers key operations comprehensively, including research, arbitrage, fill risk, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to place bets), but the overall surface is well-covered for the advertised functionalities.

Resources