Skip to main content
Glama

crypto

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It discloses two distinct execution paths, return verdicts, and the crucial semantic distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, not evidence) and unsupported (no source found). This adds rich behavioral context far beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations.

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 well-organized with an 'IMPORTANT for callers' section. The opening list of example phrasing is somewhat redundant, but every other sentence earns its place, so it is not the ideal 5.

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, value, citation, reasoning), special error semantics, and the unsupported case. It also clarifies routing and the composite nature of the tool, making it complete for callers.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description need not add much. It mentions the company-financial path's exact percent-delta math but does not elaborate on tolerance_pct beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verifier against authoritative sources, with specific triggers like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR/XBRL path) and other claims (grounded pipeline), and differentiates itself from sequential calls by noting it replaces 4–6 steps.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and details routing logic. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls 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 crypto 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but some overlap exists (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all retrieve structured data with subtle differences). Competitor analytics (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also share similar goals.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow loose patterns within subgroups (get_crypto_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*), but overall there is no single consistent convention. Verbs and noun orders vary (e.g., get_crypto_price vs. validate_claim vs. remember).

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is high; many exceed the core 'crypto' domain (company profiles, npm dependencies, memory management, subscriptions). While each tool seems justified, the count feels heavy for a single server, risking cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers crypto basics (price, market, history), company data, prediction markets, and general data retrieval comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct on-chain crypto data), but cross-domain coverage is strong.

Resources