Skip to main content
Glama

Bpstat Pt

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 1517 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 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How 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)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses authentication and pricing constraints, latency ranges, the exact findings-packet fields, gap[]/contradictions[]/provenance[] outputs, stable resolvable citations, and a no-invention guarantee. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, but it repeats the ask_pipeworx substitution at least twice, repeats the not-open-web-search caveat twice, and includes low-value filler such as 'Trigger for multi-facet questions' after the same guidance appears earlier. Too long for the amount of new information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent will get back (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps, contradictions, provenance), operational constraints (latency, account, credits, paid depth), and edge behavior (early exit, thorough follow-up). An agent has enough context 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies; the description does restate depth semantics and adds 'quick drains fewer credits', but most parameter detail (enum meanings, default, natural-language question) already lives in the schema. It adds only marginal new parameter-level meaning.

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 action ('grounded multi-source research ... in ONE call'), enumerates the data sources, and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It distinguishes from the sibling ask_pipeworx by scoping this tool to broad/multi-part questions, so an agent can tell them apart 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?

Multiple explicit routing rules are given: use deep_research for broad/multi-part or comparison questions, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups/factual/instant questions, and use ask_pipeworx if not signed in. It even documents prerequisites (GitHub sign-in, paid tier for thorough) and an early-exit behavior, leaving little to inference.

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

All Bpstat Pt 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly documented as currently identical, scan_competitor_ai_presence is a thin wrapper over ai_visibility_check, and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, edge_tracker, arbitrage, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) share heavily overlapping edge-detection/fill-analysis concerns. entity_profile and recent_changes also both fan out to the same SEC/news/patents sources, so an agent must read full descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is imperative verb_first (list_datasets, get_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency, subscribe), but there are notable deviations: noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, bet_research, and deep_research; the ask_pipeworx brand family sits awkwardly beside get_/search_ verbs; and the polymarket_* prefix family forms yet another convention. Names are readable and mostly self-explanatory, but no single consistent scheme is followed.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this exceeds the 'too many (25+)' threshold, and the bloat is compounded by the server's nominal identity: despite being named 'Bpstat Pt' (Banco de Portugal statistics), only about 5 tools (list_domains, list_datasets, get_dataset, get_series_metadata) actually serve that domain. The other 30 tools span unrelated subsystems — Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility audits, generic memory, and subscriptions — suggesting several products bundled into one server.

Completeness3/5

For the broader data-gateway interpretation, the lifecycle is well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), query (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), deep research (deep_research), profiles/comparisons (entity_profile, compare_entities), monitoring (recent_changes, subscribe/recent_alerts), and memory (remember/recall/forget). However, for the nominal Bpstat statistical domain there is no keyword search over series or datasets — navigation requires knowing domain/dataset ids in advance — and the extreme scatter across unrelated domains leaves each subsystem only partially developed.

Resources