Skip to main content
Glama

Cdec Ca

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... must not be shown as one', 'unsupported means we looked and cover no source', and explains the two routing paths. It also warns about tolerance pct overrides and return verdict types, adding substantial context not available from annotations alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but every sentence carries important guidance: trigger phrases, usage rules, routing logic, verdict semantics, and caller warnings. It is front-loaded with examples and structured logically, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers return verdicts, error handling, source routing, and alternative call patterns. It even mentions that it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, giving the agent a full understanding of when and how to invoke it. This is exceptionally complete.

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% with good descriptions for claim and tolerance_pct. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how tolerance_pct overrides implied tolerances and suggests values for hallucination detection, and provides examples of valid claim formats, going beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 states it performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that...'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on factual verification, not general Q&A or research, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides examples of claims. It also distinguishes between the SEC EDGAR path and the grounded pipeline, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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

All Cdec Ca 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, the raw data tools (daily_data, hourly_data, event_data, latest, reservoirs) all read as generic 'get data' operations, and the five polymarket_* scanners overlap in opportunity-finding. The verbose descriptions help for many composite tools, but an agent can still easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is predominantly consistent lowercase snake_case with strong prefixed families (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, scan_*) and clear verb_noun actions. Minor deviations like noun-only latest/reservoirs, ask_pipeworx lacking a separator, and generate_llms_txt keep it from a 5.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the heavy threshold, and the count is inflated by redundant meta-tools, three router variants, six overlapping generic data fetchers, and six prediction-market tools. Many tools are purposeful, so it is not an extreme mismatch, but the surface would be much cleaner at roughly 20-25 tools.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core data lifecycle well: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), lookup (ask_pipeworx), grounding/validation (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, search_within), entity workflows (resolve_entity, entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities), plus memory and subscription CRUD. Minor gaps like no explicit fetch-by-citation tool and a limited subscription type set prevent a 5.

Resources