Skip to main content
Glama

Tradier

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 1500 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 5,743 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: account requirements, gap recovery behavior, contradictions[], citation semantics, the no-invention guarantee, excerpting behavior for large records, and latency expectations. This gives an agent an unusually complete picture of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 information-dense; nearly every sentence adds a distinct, useful fact such as alternative-tool routing, deep-tier behavior, citation properties, and latencies. It is not perfectly front-loaded because the account-required notice appears before the main purpose statement, but the structure is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 carries the duty of explaining what the agent will receive. It thoroughly covers the findings packet fields, gaps[] and contradictions[] arrays, citation URIs, and timing. Combined with the rich annotations and complete parameter schema, an agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters well. The description reinforces the difference between depth modes and adds notes like 'thorough needs a paid plan' and latency expectations, but it does not substantially change parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call') and clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx. It also describes the internal mechanism of decomposition and parallel routing, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), when not to ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'), and even names a fallback for unsigned-in users. The depth tiers are explained with concrete behavioral differences, giving clear decision criteria.

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

All Tradier 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all serve general data querying, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_edge_tracker all target prediction-market opportunities. An agent would struggle to pick the right one consistently despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), some use a pipeworx_ prefix, some use tradier_ prefix, and some use descriptive phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the heavy side, but more importantly the count does not match the server's stated identity. The server is named Tradier, yet only 3 of 34 tools are Tradier-specific market data tools; the rest are Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities. The scope feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

For a server named Tradier, the surface is severely incomplete: only quote, option expirations, and option chain are provided. Missing are account info, positions, orders, historical data, watchlists, and other core brokerage/trading operations. The Pipeworx research side is broad, but the apparent trading domain has major gaps that would cause agent failures.

Resources