Skip to main content
Glama

F1

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: return verdict types, the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen, includes verification_error, not evidence), unsupported (no source), and the tolerance_pct override with default cap. This is rich context not available in the 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 lengthy but every sentence contributes: query examples, pipeline routing, verdict semantics, error handling, and performance benefits. It is front-loaded with the trigger phrases and clear opening, making it easy to scan despite the length.

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?

The description is extremely complete for a complex tool with no output schema. It covers return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported), pipeline routing, and performance characteristics. The annotation coverage (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) plus this rich description leaves minimal ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example claims and explaining tolerance_pct usage (set 1–2 for hallucination detection, default implied by wording capped at 5), which goes beyond the schema's syntax-level description.

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?

Description clearly states it performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'claim'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the SEC EDGAR/XBRL structured path for company financials and a grounded pipeline for other claims, and explicitly notes it 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes company-financial claims from other factual claims, explaining the routing logic. It doesn't name specific alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the 'use whenever' is a strong contextual signal.

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

All F1 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-clones: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ mainly by mode, and deep_research overlaps with all of them. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also blur together, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve a 'what can I do' purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but the convention is mixed: verb-first (get_current_standings, validate_claim, scan_dependency), noun-first (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe). The F1 tools follow a clean get_* pattern that doesn't extend to the rest of the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive, especially since the server is named 'F1' but only 4 tools relate to F1. The set could be consolidated substantially: three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple overlapping polymarket scanners, and two tool-discovery helpers all add weight without clear scope.

Completeness2/5

The F1 side is thin: no qualifying results, constructor standings, lap data, circuits, or driver search by name. The Pipeworx half is broad, but it belongs to a different domain, leaving the overall surface feeling incomplete for either purpose.

Resources