Skip to main content
Glama

Statbank Md

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description goes well beyond these by explaining the anti-hallucination extraction behavior, the success/refusal return shape, the specific refusal_reason values, and the extra cost. This gives the agent a full behavioral model beyond 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 somewhat long but front-loads the core purpose and clearly separates success behavior, refusal behavior, and usage guidance. The internal pipeline detail ('5,724 across 1,497 sources') is extra, but it earns its place by reinforcing the tool's scope and groundedness.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract, including evidence, confidence, source, and the refusal_reason enum. It covers use cases, cost, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to decide when to invoke it and to interpret its result.

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 coverage is 100%; the input schema fully documents the `question` parameter and its aliases. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific, differentiated mode: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' and explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx for groundedness. It states what the tool does (routes, fetches data, extracts answer using only tool result) and what it returns, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...' and explicitly tells the agent to 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' It also notes the cost tradeoff (one extra LLM call), providing a clear decision rule versus the sibling tool.

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

All Statbank Md 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in scope, and the prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) share similar functions. While some tools are distinct, the boundaries between many are unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix product-like identifiers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), descriptive nouns (entity_profile, subjects), and inconsistent verb forms (query_table, resolve_entity, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern is maintained across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overpopulated relative to its apparent purpose. The name 'Statbank Md' suggests a narrow statistical service, but only 3 tools are Statbank-specific; the rest form a sprawling general-purpose data toolkit. The count is far beyond what the core function needs.

Completeness3/5

For the Statbank subset, the surface is complete (browse subjects, get metadata, query data). As a general data research suite, it covers many domains (SEC, FDA, economics, prediction markets) but lacks execution/trading tools for prediction markets and has no bulk data export or analytics beyond excerpts. Notable gaps exist but many core workflows are covered.

Resources