Skip to main content
Glama

Could Have Been Email

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?

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond annotations: two distinct verification paths, the exact verdict set, the semantic distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, citation format, and the fact that it replaces sequential calls. It also warns callers not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. This is rich context well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 despite being information-dense. It front-loads trigger phrases, then states purpose, routing, return values, and caveats in a logical order. Every sentence adds value—no fluff, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' section earns its place.

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 list, actual value, citation, reasoning) and the error semantics. It covers routing, edge cases, and performance benefits. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably complete and self-contained.

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% for both parameters. The description adds extra context for tolerance_pct by explaining its role in hallucination detection and overriding the implied tolerance, which goes beyond the schema's basic definition. The claim parameter is well illustrated with examples. This surpasses the baseline of 3.

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 as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with strong trigger examples and explicit scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on verifying claims (not general research or entity comparisons) and even quantifies its efficiency benefit by replacing 4–6 sequential calls.

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 states explicitly to use when the agent needs to check factual correctness of something a user said. It details routing logic (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all others) and provides critical usage warnings about could_not_verify. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough; slightly less direct than an explicit when-not-to-use.

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

All Could Have Been Email 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and the six polymarket tools heavily overlap in surfacing prediction-market edge. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily misselect between bet_research and polymarket_edges or between discover_tools and suggest_questions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some are compound noun phrases (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). ask_pipeworx also breaks the separator convention compared to ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and feels like a platform bundle rather than a focused server. It spans data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, AI visibility, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, which is far more surface area than one coherent server should present.

Completeness4/5

For the core data-research and prediction-market domains, coverage is strong: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage, fill-risk, subscriptions, and memory are all present with no major dead ends. The gaps are mostly the single-purpose oddballs (could_have_been_email_analyze, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't connect to the rest of the surface.

Resources