Skip to main content
Glama

usgswater

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond those: findings packet contents, gaps[] behavior, contradictions[], always-fetchable citation_uri, semantic excerpting, expected latency, and the account/paid-plan requirement. No contradiction exists.

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 front-loads the account requirement and sibling routing, then provides dense, relevant detail. It is longer than average and repeats ask_pipeworx guidance a few times, but every section adds useful operational context for a complex tool.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it specifies return packet fields, citation semantics, gaps[], contradictions[], hop behavior, depth trade-offs, latency expectations, and authentication constraints. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without opening schemas.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, but the description adds extra meaning: it gives example natural-language questions, explains that broad/multi-part questions are acceptable, and elaborates on the behavioral differences between quick, standard, and thorough beyond the enum 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' and clarifies it is 'NOT open-web search.' It includes concrete example questions and distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell what it does and how it differs.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, for breaking/current news, or when not signed in; use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It even names the alternative tool and the conditions that route an agent elsewhere.

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

All usgswater 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve as query routers, with the beta variant currently identical to the stable one. However, most other tools have clearly distinct purposes (memory, subscriptions, prediction market analytics), and the detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, with consistent domain prefixes like pipeworx_ for meta tools and polymarket_ for prediction markets. Some names mix noun-phrase and verb-noun patterns (e.g., ai_visibility_check vs. resolve_entity), but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 31 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set. While the broad scope (data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility) justifies many tools, the sheer number creates cognitive load and makes selection harder for agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is quite comprehensive for its domains: querying has ask_pipeworx, grounded answer, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, and claim validation; prediction markets have research, arbitrage, edge tracking, and fill risk; memory and subscription lifecycles are covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no subscription update) but are workable.

Resources