Skip to main content
Glama

Stat Ee

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. 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), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New 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)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New 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), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: parallel tool routing, the exact findings-packet shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citation), gaps[] with a 'never invented' guarantee, contradictions[] on standard/thorough, semantic excerpting of long records, always-fetchable citation_uri, and latency bounds. 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?

Front-loaded effectively: auth constraint first, then core value proposition, then sibling routing, then behavioral detail and timing. The middle section is convoluted and somewhat redundant with the earlier ask_pipeworx guidance, and the overall length is high, but every sentence carries information rather than filler.

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 correctly carries the full burden of describing return values: findings packet, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri. It covers auth tiers, latency, failure behavior, alternative routing, and parameter semantics — complete for a complex multi-step research tool.

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% and the depth enum is already well-described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value: 'thorough' requires a paid plan (a cost signal that should influence parameter selection), ties depth choice to latency (15–60s, thorough up to ~90s), and clarifies that broad multi-part natural-language questions are the intended input for 'question'.

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 and resource: grounded multi-source research across 1,517 STRUCTURED data sources in ONE call, decomposing the question into facets routed to 5,798 tools in parallel. Explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell it apart from its 35 siblings 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and names alternatives with selection conditions: ask_pipeworx for single lookups, for users not signed in, and for live-news topics outside the structured catalog. Also discloses the paid-tier constraint for 'thorough', enabling correct routing or user warning.

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

All Stat Ee 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have fairly distinct action/resource targets and the descriptions carefully separate entry points like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical clone of ask_pipeworx right now, and a few related pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, stat_ee_find_table fetch_latest vs estonia_average_wage) add ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and verb-led names like resolve_entity, query_table, and suggest_questions are clear. But the set mixes conventions: bare nouns (subjects, recall, forget), adjective-noun phrases (recent_alerts, recent_changes), no-verb names (estonia_average_wage, table_meta), and multiple prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, stat_ee_*). It is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 15-tool threshold for a well-scoped server, and the set spans many unrelated domains: Estonian statistics, Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, npm scanning, memory, and subscriptions. There is also clear redundancy (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check could be folded into scan_competitor_ai_presence). This feels scattered for a server named 'Stat Ee'.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-research/agent-assistant purpose, key workflows are well covered: discovery/query/grounded/deep research, entity resolution/profile/compare/validate/recent changes, complete memory CRUD, subscription CRUD with alert feeds, and a full Polymarket edge/arb/fill-risk suite. The main gap is not missing operations within these workflows but rather the overall scope being too broad and unfocused.

Resources