Skip to main content
Glama

Fidenta Verify

by ai.noevant

estimate_claims

Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE. Break text into checkable claims and report how many there are and how many credits verifying them would cost. Spends nothing and verifies nothing. Always call this before verify_claims on anything longer than a sentence or two — an article can contain 20 claims, and each claim costs one credit, so the user should see the price before agreeing to it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoA public http(s) link to an article or web page. We fetch it, extract the readable text and verify the claims in it. Use this when the user gives you a link instead of text — you do not need to fetch the page yourself. Pages behind a login or paywall cannot be read; ask for the text instead.
textNoThe text to break into claims. May also be a bare link.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial context: it is free, spends nothing, verifies nothing, and reports cost. This explains the economic behavior beyond what annotations capture, making the agent aware of side effects on credits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE', and every sentence serves a purpose: what it does, what it doesn't do, and when to use it. There is no wasted language.

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 simple estimation tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it explains the output (count and cost) and the prerequisite for verify_claims. No output schema is needed since the return values are explicitly stated.

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% and both parameters (url, text) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 states exactly what the tool does: break text into checkable claims and report the count and credit cost. The verb 'break' and the resource 'claims' are specific, and it clearly distinguishes itself from verify_claims by emphasizing it estimates rather than verifies.

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 instructs to 'Always call this before verify_claims' and explains the rationale with cost awareness. It also contrasts with the alternative (verify_claims) and provides condition ('anything longer than a sentence or two').

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

All Fidenta Verify 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct function: usage monitoring, cost estimation, historical lookup, credit purchase, and actual verification. There is no semantic overlap between the tool purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Four tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_usage, estimate_claims, recall_claim, verify_claims), but top_up is a phrasal verb deviating from this pattern. Still, all names are imperative and consistently lowercase with underscores.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped set for a credit-based verification service. Each tool earns its place, covering the essential actions without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the full verification workflow: estimate cost, verify claims, recall prior verifications, check usage, and top up credits. A minor gap is that recall_claim only checks whether a claim was verified, not retrieving the previous verdict, but the core lifecycle is complete.

Resources