Skip to main content
Glama

Dailymed

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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It explains the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), and importantly clarifies the semantics of 'could_not_verify' (not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source found). This is critical for callers and goes well beyond what annotations 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 relatively long but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose with examples, then provides usage context, pipeline details, return value summary, and important caveats. Every sentence adds value, but it could be tightened by moving the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' remark to a more prominent place or trimming redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (verdict categories, actual value with citation, reasoning) and covers edge cases (could_not_verify, unsupported). It also clarifies the source routing and the meaning of verification_error. This is a complete description for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so per the rubric this is a baseline 3. The description does mention tolerance_pct indirectly through 'implied by wording' and the claim examples are in the schema, but it adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already describes. No parameter information in the description compensates for gaps, because there are no gaps.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It uses a specific verb (validate/verify) and resource (factual claims), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for fact-checking claims and replaces 4–6 sequential calls. The opening examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') make the purpose immediately clear.

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 when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing logic for company-financial vs. other claims, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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

All Dailymed 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; deep_research; bet_research and multiple polymarket tools). This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. However, some names are very long and descriptive (e.g., polymarket_kalshi_spread, scan_competitor_ai_presence), which is acceptable but slightly inconsistent in length.

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server is on the high side of reasonable. Many are meta-tools or query routers, which inflates the count. The scope is very broad, covering diverse domains, making the number somewhat justifiable but still feeling heavy.

Completeness3/5

For the Dailymed domain, tools cover label search, retrieval, history, and comparison. However, many other domains (e.g., finance, prediction markets) rely on a handful of routing tools (ask_pipeworx) rather than dedicated tools, leaving the coverage uneven and not fully self-contained.

Resources