Skip to main content
Glama

Twelvedata

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: account and paid-plan requirements, parallel decomposition across 5,724 tools, the gaps[] 'never invented' guarantee, contradictions[] behavior for standard/thorough, the citation_uri fetchability contract, and the 15-90s timing. This is exemplary disclosure.

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 every sentence carries a distinct piece of actionable information, from auth to output format to timing. It is front-loaded with the most critical gate ('ACCOUNT REQUIRED... If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx'). Minor redundancy exists ('NOT open-web search' and later 'structured catalog' repeat the same theme), but overall it is well-organized and dense without bloat.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies what is returned: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri semantics. It covers auth, cost, latency, error fallback, and scope limitations. An agent gets everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 real value on top: depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, standard re-angles gaps while thorough also chases leads, and question is explicitly allowed to be broad/multi-part ('Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point'). It does not cover every nuance of the enumeration, but it meaningfully enriches 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources'. It explicitly disambiguates from open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search') and names the sibling it is not (ask_pipeworx) with a concrete difference ('one LLM call, not many'). This makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), when-not-to-use ('For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx'), and an alternative ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'). It even handles the auth edge case ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). No inference is left to the agent.

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

All Twelvedata 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
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between price, quote, eod, and time_series for price data. Also, the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research could cause confusion about which to use for factual queries. Some tools like bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage also have overlapping domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case pattern (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). A few are single words (cryptocurrencies, indices, profile) which is acceptable. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions, so consistent overall.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is quite high for a single server. While the domain is broad (financial data, prediction markets, SEC filings, etc.), many tools are highly specific (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, scan_dependency) and could be consolidated. The count feels bloated and adds cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is impressively comprehensive, covering stocks, forex, crypto, economic data, SEC filings, prediction markets, entity resolution, and even claims validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited drug data despite having some tools), but overall the surface supports a wide range of agentic workflows without obvious missing operations.

Resources