Skip to main content
Glama

Worldbank Poverty

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 1497 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 5,724 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?

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond the annotations: account and paid-tier requirements, non-open-web nature, parallel tool routing, findings packet format, gaps[] never invented, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No contradiction with 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 each sentence is informative and front-loaded with the account requirement and core distinction from open-web search. It could be trimmed slightly, but the density is justified given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri, and latency. It also covers auth prerequisites and sibling routing, making it complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 meaningful context on top: depth:'standard' means gap recovery, depth:'thorough' chases leads, and it gives natural-language question examples beyond the schema's explanation.

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 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call. It distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by explicitly describing its parallel decomposition and structured-source scope.

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 guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions; use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/current news, or when not signed in. This makes tool selection unambiguous.

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

All Worldbank Poverty 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all route to the same data sources. Additionally, the server includes unrelated meta-tools (remember/recall/forget, generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback) that have no clear boundaries with the poverty data tools, and betting tools that seem out of place. The core poverty tools (get_poverty, get_poverty_regional, list_reference) are distinct, but the rest creates significant confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of styles: some use snake_case (get_poverty, list_reference, suggest_questions), some use camelCase (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence), and others are single words (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming pattern is highly inconsistent, making it hard to predict related tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a 'Worldbank Poverty' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to poverty (Polymarket betting, AI marketing, npm package checks, LLM visibility). The core poverty functionality could be served by 3-5 tools, but instead the server includes dozens of extra tools from a generic data platform, making the count inappropriate for the stated domain.

Completeness4/5

For the poverty data domain, the tool surface is actually quite complete: get_poverty for country-level data, get_poverty_regional for aggregations, and list_reference for metadata. The only minor gap is a lack of a tool for comparing poverty across countries directly, but that is easy to work around by calling get_poverty multiple times. The extra meta-tools do not affect poverty data completeness.

Resources