Skip to main content
Glama

Open Contracting

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints, and the description adds a large amount of behavioral context beyond them: facet decomposition, parallel routing to 5,798 tools, gaps[] with a never-invented guarantee, hop behavior per depth, contradictions[] scanning, semantic excerpting, 15-90s latency, and the account/paid-tier requirement. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the most critical constraint (account required) and nearly every sentence earns its place, but it is dense and partially redundant with the schema's depth parameter, which already documents hop mechanics and contradictions[]. The citation/citation_uri behavior is also described twice in slightly different terms, adding length without 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly: findings packets with evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at, stable citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and timing. Combined with the schema's depth documentation and the annotations' safety profile, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 genuine value over the schema by tying the 'depth' enum to cost (thorough requires a paid plan) and latency expectations, and by clarifying that 'question' is expected to be broad or multi-part. These semantics are not present in the schema.

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 action ('grounded multi-source research') over a concrete resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources'), emphasizes 'in ONE call', and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search. It also names the sibling it is not (ask_pipeworx), so an agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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 states when to use this tool ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when not to ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), including the auth condition ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). This is fully explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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

All Open Contracting 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve query/discovery purposes; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all target prediction-market opportunity detection. ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, making the distinction essentially invisible without deep description parsing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix domain prefixes (oc_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), action verbs (validate_claim, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and plain nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes). Most are readable snake_case, but there is no uniform verb_noun or domain-first convention, so the set feels stylistically fragmented rather than patterned.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a heavy surface for a server ostensibly named 'Open Contracting' — only 4 of the 35 tools actually relate to open contracting data. The rest sprawl across general data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, and AI visibility, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused relative to the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the open-contracting domain implied by the server name, the surface is incomplete: there is coverage metadata, search, recent releases, and process history, but no direct retrieval of a single release by ID and no broader OCDS exploration tools. As a general data/Pipeworx toolkit the coverage is wide, but the severe mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set creates a significant gap between expectation and capability.

Resources