Skip to main content
Glama

Ecos Kr

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 declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: the two routing paths, the nuanced meanings of 'could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported', the inclusion of verification_error{stage,detail}, and the explicit warning not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. This far exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 well structured, front-loaded with example search queries that quickly convey the tool's intent. Every sentence earns its place by explaining a distinct aspect: routing, return values, error semantics, and efficiency gains. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains the returned verdict types, the grounded/structured value, citation, reasoning, and the special error handling for could_not_verify. The tool is complex, and the description covers its key behaviors comprehensively, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The description adds some context via 'exact percent-delta math' and 'tolerance implied by claim wording', but it does not specifically explain tolerance_pct beyond what the schema already covers. 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 states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides concrete examples and explains the two distinct verification paths (structured SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company-financial claims and a grounded pipeline for others), making it unmistakable what the tool does. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies the internal routing for different claim types and notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it is the go-to tool. However, it does not name any specific alternative tool for when this tool should not be used, leaving a small gap.

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

All Ecos Kr 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical today, and the polymarket_edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/kalshi_spread family plus entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities cover adjacent jobs. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate them with careful reading, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set has recognizable prefixes like ecos_, ask_pipeworx, and polymarket_, but it also mixes verb_noun names (validate_claim, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), reversed/gerund forms (bet_research, pipeworx_trending), and special tokens (generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable on a per-family basis but not predictable across the full surface.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range for a coherent tool set, and several entries are near-duplicates or wrappers: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The prediction-market and company-research families could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

For the server's broad scope, lifecycle coverage is strong: ECOS has search/items/get/indicators, subscriptions have create/list/read/cancel, memory has save/read/delete, and the data-research surface covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, profiles, changes, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI or execute a single catalog tool directly, but these are workable.

Resources