Skip to main content
Glama

Walkscore

by io.github.pipeworx-io

What Can I Ask Pipeworx?

suggest_questions
Read-onlyIdempotent

What can I ask Pipeworx? / what is Pipeworx good for? / what can you do? / give me ideas / show me examples / getting started / what data do you have? — the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. Returns category-bucketed example questions (company financials, drugs & clinical trials, economics, real estate, prediction markets, weather, government & patents, science & academia, news) — each with the exact tool + argument shape that answers it, drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic (e.g. "finance", "pharma", "betting") to focus. Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoOptional focus area: finance | pharma | economics | real-estate | betting | weather | government | science | news. Omit for a cross-category spread.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds context: returns category-bucketed examples drawn from live catalog, and behavior with/without topic argument. No contradictions.

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?

Description is moderately long but well-structured. Alternative phrasings, return description, and usage instructions are all present without unnecessary repetition. Each sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return format (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shapes). Complete for an onboarding tool; missing specifics like number of examples per category is acceptable.

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 covers 100% of parameters (one optional topic). Description adds specific topic values and clarifies that omitting topic gives a cross-category spread, adding meaning beyond schema description.

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 clearly states the tool returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool and argument shapes, serving as an onboarding entry point. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by focusing on suggesting questions rather than answering or discovering tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' Indicates when to use and effect of optional topic parameter. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear.

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

All Walkscore 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinct but several clusters (ask_pipeworx family, polymarket family) have highly similar names that could cause confusion. For example, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all appear to do similar things with subtle differences. The agent would need to read descriptions carefully to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, a few are single verbs (remember, recall, forget) or have inconsistent suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta, walkscore_score). This is mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is quite high, bordering on excessive. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the sheer number may overwhelm the agent. However, the tools cover a wide range of functionality, so the count is not unreasonable for a comprehensive data platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is comprehensive for querying data, conducting research, managing subscriptions, and evaluating bets. It includes meta-tools for discovery and memory. Notable gaps include user account management and direct file handling, but overall coverage is strong.

Resources