Skip to main content
Glama

Dryad

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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, the meaning of verification_error, and the two distinct processing paths. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent handle verdicts correctly.

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?

While lengthy, every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, use case, two paths, verdict list, important caution about could_not_verify, and a note on efficiency. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the most actionable information.

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 covers return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error handling. It explains what could_not_verify and unsupported mean, and clarifies the two routing scenarios, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context by explaining the two processing paths and how tolerance_pct overrides implied wording, which complements the schema without repeating it.

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, with explicit verbs like 'fact check' and 'verify.' It distinguishes the tool by describing its two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for anything else) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its scope and value 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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and lists trigger phrases. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

All Dryad 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap between tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, as well as between polymarket_edges and bet_research. While descriptions differentiate them, an agent may struggle to pick the right one without deep understanding of nuances.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use mixed conventions: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and single-word verbs (forget, recall). Some names are very long (polymarket_fill_risk) while others are terse, reducing predictability.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high but can be justified by the broad domain coverage (data retrieval, entity resolution, comparisons, memory, subscriptions). However, several tools serve similar purposes, suggesting potential consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and tasks (SEC, FDA, real estate, prediction markets, etc.) with CRUD-like operations on memory and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct stock trading or social media monitoring, but overall coverage is strong.

Resources