Skip to main content
Glama

chess

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path vs. grounded fallback, the verdict set, citation style, error semantics, and the fact that it replaces multiple sequential calls. Annotations declare read-only/idempotent, which the description confirms without contradiction.

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 moderately long but well-structured: user-intent patterns first, then routing logic, return contract, error semantics, and a performance note. Every clause earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter without losing the important caveats.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully specifies return values (verdict list, value, citation, reasoning), error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported), and routing details. It is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning to tolerance_pct: it explains default behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5), explicit use for hallucination detection (1–2), and the range. This goes beyond the schema's dry description of 'max percent deviation'.

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?

Purpose is explicit and specific: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with concrete example queries. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic Q&A siblings like ask_pipeworx by framing it as a fact-check/verify tool and noting it replaces a multi-step pipeline.

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?

States exactly when to use: whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness. Gives routing guidance (company-financial vs. other claims) and explicitly explains the meaning of could_not_verify and unsupported, preventing misuse. No competing alternative is named, but the scope is unambiguous.

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

All chess 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server is named 'chess', yet none of the 34 tools relate to chess. An agent looking for chess functionality would find all tools irrelevant. While individual tool descriptions are clear, the server's name creates a fundamental disambiguation problem: the tool set does not match the server's apparent purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names within the set follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions. However, the server name 'chess' is completely inconsistent with the tool names, which all suggest data research rather than chess.

Tool Count1/5

For a server named 'chess', 34 tools is wildly excessive. Even for a data research server, the count is high, but the server's name implies a narrow chess domain, making the count inappropriate. The tools cover broad topics like SEC filings, Polymarket, and weather, none of which belong in a chess server.

Completeness1/5

The server claims to be about chess, but there are zero chess-related tools. The tool set is completely incomplete for its stated purpose. As a data research server, completeness might be high, but that is irrelevant given the server name.

Resources