Skip to main content
Glama

Tcgdex

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the parallel-routing architecture, depth-specific hop behavior, gap[] handling, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, citation_uri fetchability, semantic excerpting, account/payment requirements, and latency expectations. No contradiction with the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 account constraint and each major section carries operational detail. Some repetition around findings, citations, and gaps could be tightened, but the length is largely justified for a tool this complex.

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 compensates by specifying return semantics: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri, and semantic excerpting. It also covers latency, authentication, and non-answer scenarios, so an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description adds meaningful depth: concrete facet counts per depth value, the paid restriction for thorough, and clarification that question is broad/multi-part natural language. This is additive value, not just repetition of the schema.

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 structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and routing them to tools in parallel. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx.

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 when-to-use guidance (broad/multi-part structured-data questions) and when-not-to (single lookups, breaking/current-world news), naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative. It even covers the sign-in/tier prerequisites and directs unsigned-in users to the appropriate sibling.

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

All Tcgdex 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The four card tools are distinct, but the majority of the server is a Pipeworx/prediction-market platform with heavily overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical twin of ask_pipeworx. The six Polymarket tools and the ai_visibility/scan_competitor pair also have fuzzy boundaries that would make tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the pattern is highly inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_card, search_cards, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), some are noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, bet_research), and some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The ask_pipeworx variants share a name but differ only by suffix, which is not a clear action-oriented pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is squarely in the 'too many' territory, and the bloat is worse because the server is named Tcgdex while only 4 of 35 tools actually relate to trading cards. The remaining 31 tools form a sprawling multi-domain platform that mixes data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and one-off utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.

Completeness4/5

For the TCGdex card surface, the read-only workflows are covered well: search_cards leads to get_card, and list_sets leads to get_set, with no obvious dead ends. For the broader Pipeworx functionality, the set includes discovery, query, grounding, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, so the main workflows are supported—though the overall scope is sprawling rather than focused.

Resources