Skip to main content
Glama

Crontab

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the exact return verdicts, the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (pipeline failure, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source covered), and the reasoning/verbatim evidence behavior. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding beyond annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: query examples, routing logic, return verdicts, the critical caveat about could_not_verify, and the efficiency benefit. It is well structured, front-loaded with the purpose, and free of filler.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description does an excellent job of explaining return values, verdict semantics, error handling, and routing. It covers all key aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 already provides 100% coverage, including the tolerance_pct override semantics and default behavior. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters that isn't already in the schema; it is at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 concrete example phrasings. It distinguishes itself from sibling Q&A/research tools by specifying the claim-verification purpose and the two routing paths (structured SEC fast path vs. grounded pipeline).

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 states when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. It also explains the fallback behavior for any non-financial claim, giving clear context. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Crontab 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer factual questions with subtle differences that are not immediately clear. Additionally, five polymarket tools cover similar ground (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, spread), making it hard to pick the right one without reading the full descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., describe_cron, next_runs, validate_claim). Minor deviations exist (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending) but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the high end for a focused server, and the server name 'Crontab' implies a narrow cron utility while most tools are a broad data-research platform. This mismatch makes the count feel bloated and poorly scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a cron server, the set is severely incomplete: only describe_cron and next_runs exist, with no create/delete/update functionality. For the actual data-research domain, it is rich but lacks clear CRUD coverage for many resources, and the inclusion of unrelated cron/memory tools creates dead ends.

Resources