Skip to main content
Glama

Yc Rejection

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 cover the safe/idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: parallel decomposition across 5,743 tools, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, citation fetchability guarantees, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. There is no contradiction with the readOnly/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 dense and information-rich, and the critical account prerequisite is front-loaded. It is longer than ideal and repeats the ask_pipeworx alternative several times, but nearly every sentence adds operational value for a complex two-parameter 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?

For a tool with no output schema and complex behavior, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites, auth/plan constraints, return shape, citation semantics, edge cases like unanswered facets, latency, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide 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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds useful behavioral color around depth modes (contradictions[] for standard/thorough, timing expectations) but does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell it apart from its siblings without inspecting schemas.

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: broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It also names exclusions and alternatives: use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/current-news topics, or when not signed in. This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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

All Yc Rejection 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket analysis tools. The presence of meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions adds confusion. Distinguishing between tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes requires careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others use underscores (compare_entities, deep_research). Prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are inconsistently applied, and there is no clear verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for its name 'Yc Rejection'. Only one tool directly relates to that domain. The rest constitute a full data platform, making the count far too high for the implied narrow purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Yc Rejection', the tool set is severely incomplete: only one tool generates rejection text. There are no tools for application management, review, or related tasks. The actual completeness of the underlying platform is irrelevant given the misleading name.

Resources