Skip to main content
Glama

Cryptocompare

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max 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.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by explaining the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline), and it carefully defines edge-case verdicts: could_not_verify is not evidence, unsupported means no source found. It also discloses that the tool performs multiple internal sub-steps, adding behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 fairly long but each sentence serves a purpose: trigger phrases, pipeline explanation, verdict semantics, and a note about replacing multiple calls. It could tighten some repetition (e.g., 'grounded pipeline' wording) but it is well-structured and front-loads the most important usage trigger.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return verdicts, the actual-value-with-citation, and the reasoning. It also covers error semantics and the source-routing logic, making the tool self-contained for an agent to use without additional documentation.

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 contains rich, self-sufficient descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct, including examples and defaults, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond restating that company financial claims use 'exact percent-delta math', so it does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 verification service with specific trigger phrases and a well-defined scope (company-financial vs other factual claims). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on verdicts and citations rather than open-ended Q&A, and it states the composite nature (replaces 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and gives concrete example phrasings. It also tells the caller about tolerance_pct override for hallucination detection. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for overlapping tasks, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Cryptocompare 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, its beta, and grounded variants, the six polymarket_* tools, and the three price endpoints (price, price_full, price_multi) can be confused despite distinct purposes. Long descriptions provide some disambiguation, but an agent must read carefully to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow snake_case with verb_noun or noun_noun patterns (all_coins, compare_entities, top_market_cap), and related families share clear prefixes (histo_*, polymarket_*). Minor deviations exist (bare verbs like remember/forget, brand names like ask_pipeworx), but the overall pattern is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools, the server is far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and nearly double the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools are unrelated to the server's apparent crypto purpose (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, memory helpers), making it feel like a general-purpose utility rather than a focused data service.

Completeness3/5

The crypto data surface is fairly complete (spot, historical, top lists, news, social stats, exchange metadata), and the Pipeworx meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile) cover a broad range of factual queries. However, there are notable gaps: no direct way to fetch pipeworx:// citation URIs, and no advanced crypto order-book/trade endpoints, leaving some workflows as dead ends.

Resources