Skip to main content
Glama

Base64

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, must not be treated as evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source covers it). It also discloses the internal routing logic and that tolerance is capped at 5% by default, giving agents a fuller picture of tool behavior.

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 front-loaded with example triggers, then states the core use case, pipeline routing, return values, and error semantics. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff. It is dense but well-organized, making it easy for an agent to parse the essential 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 fully explains return values (verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error handling. It also covers the two distinct operational paths and the meaning of each verdict category. Given the tool's complexity, this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'claim' is described as a natural-language factual claim with examples, and 'tolerance_pct' is fully explained including its default. The description body itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already says, 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 gives a specific verb (verify, fact check) and resource (natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on producing a verdict. Examples like "is it true that" and "confirm or refute" immediately signal the tool's purpose.

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 it: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for other claims), providing clear context for these different cases. The note about replacing 4–6 sequential calls further guides efficient usage.

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

All Base64 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 groups have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edge_tracker / polymarket_fill_risk / polymarket_kalshi_spread / bet_research all push prediction-market opportunities and can be confused, and ai_visibility_check is nested inside scan_competitor_ai_presence. discover_tools and suggest_questions also overlap as tool-discovery entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case and mostly descriptive, but conventions are mixed: verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, compare_entities, search_within) sit beside noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research, polymarket_edges), and brand-prefixed tools (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) have unprefixed functional siblings (list_subscriptions, recent_alerts). The two actual Base64 tools (base64_encode, base64_decode) don't match the dominant Pipeworx naming style at all.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for any single server, and the mismatch is extreme: the server is named 'Base64' yet only 2 of 33 tools relate to encoding/decoding — the other 31 form a sprawling data-research platform. Even judged as a data platform, the count exceeds the comfortable range and includes near-duplicates (the ask_pipeworx family, the Polymarket family).

Completeness4/5

The factual-data surface is well covered: query, grounded lookup, deep research, entity profiling, comparison, claim verification, entity resolution, subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), memory (remember/recall/forget), feedback, and tool discovery all exist with no obvious dead ends. The Base64 encoding domain is also complete (encode/decode across four variants). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no way to update a profile or edit memory entries) but they're workable.

Resources