Skip to main content
Glama

veritap

by dev.veritap

Check the condition or grading of a physical item

check_physical_condition
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the stated condition, damage, or grading of a physical item or property. Free, read-only, no side effects.

Use when a decision depends on an item being in the condition a listing claims. Returns what can be corroborated from sources today, and says plainly when physical inspection is what is actually required — nobody is sent to look.

Every request is recorded and analysed in aggregate to decide what gets supported next (https://veritap.dev/terms).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deadlineNoISO8601. When the answer stops being useful.
locationNoWhere the fact must be checked.
claim_typeNoOptional. A claim type id from the published catalog, if you know it.
callback_urlNoOptional. If this claim is not supported yet, POST here when it becomes supported. Otherwise you are told on your next call.
task_contextNoThe wider task this step belongs to.
cost_if_wrongNoWhat happens to your task if this fact is wrong: "blocks_task", "degrades_answer", or "cosmetic".
claim_descriptionYesFree text. The real-world fact you need settled. Required.
downstream_actionNoWhat you will do with the answer once you have it.
budget_ceiling_usdNoMost you would pay for this answer. Directly drives what gets built next.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds that the tool is free, read-only, and has no side effects, which aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. It further discloses that every request is recorded and analyzed in aggregate, and clearly states its limitation of not performing physical inspections.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it states purpose in the first sentence, adds cost/safety in the second, gives usage guidance in the third, and explains returns/limitations and data handling in the fourth and fifth. Every sentence carries distinct information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich annotations and full schema descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and non-obvious behaviors (data recording, no physical inspection). Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It lacks only explicit links to sibling alternatives, keeping it from a 5.

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?

All nine parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so even without additional parameter info in the tool description, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does provide high-level context (e.g., the purpose and limitations) but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('the stated condition, damage, or grading of a physical item or property'). The added 'Use when' sentence positions it distinctly from sibling verification tools by focusing on physical item condition claims.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a decision depends on an item being in the condition a listing claims') and provides a key exclusion ('nobody is sent to look'), which implies when not to use it for physical inspections. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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

All veritap 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

Several tools overlap significantly. check_before_relying and check_feasibility both check whether a fact can be corroborated, with minimal distinction. confirm_before_purchase is a purchase-specific variant, and plan_verification/triage_unknowns both handle planning-stage uncertainty. Agents would struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

The verb set is inconsistent: check, confirm, plan, triage. Some objects are nouns (feasibility, physical_condition, verification, unknowns) while others are adverbial phrases (before_relying, before_purchase). No uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count4/5

Six tools is within a reasonable range for the verification domain. The count is not excessive, though some tools could be consolidated to reduce redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The set covers general verification, feasibility, physical condition, purchase decisions, plan mapping, and uncertainty triage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit identity/authenticity check), but the coverage is largely sufficient for the stated purpose.

Resources