Skip to main content
Glama

Gdacs

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?

Beyond annotations, it discloses the fast-path vs grounded pipeline behavior, the exact math for financial claims, and crucial error semantics: could_not_verify indicates the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, while unsupported means no source covers it. These traits are not inferable from annotations.

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 structured effectively: intent examples, routing logic, return output, and caller warnings are each front-loaded and distinct. Every sentence adds necessary context for correct invocation, and the length is justified by 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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the verdict vocabulary, return components (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), and explicitly defines could_not_verify vs unsupported. Combined with the 100% schema coverage, it leaves no critical ambiguity for callers.

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 both claim and tolerance_pct fully described, including default and override semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the percent-delta math, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with natural-language examples ("Is it true that…", "fact check") and explicitly states "natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources." It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting it consolidates 4–6 sequential steps, and explains the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs grounded fallback).

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?

It says "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct," and further distinguishes company-financial claims from any other factual claim. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Gdacs 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (especially ask_pipeworx_beta, identical to ask_pipeworx) and the six Polymarket tools overlap conceptually and could cause misselection. Detailed descriptions largely compensate, but the boundaries between some meta-tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs bet_research) require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun-first compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and single-word nouns (event, events, rss). The pattern is predictable for common actions but inconsistent across the set, making it harder to guess names for related tasks.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the count is heavy and the server named 'Gdacs' includes many unrelated tools (Polymarket, npm scanning, AI visibility), indicating scope creep. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family and multiple pattern-market scanners), and the breadth dilutes the disaster-alerting focus implied by the server name.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: data querying (ask/research/validate), entity profiling, prediction-market analysis (arbitrage/edges/fill risk), and subscription management (create/list/cancel). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for a specific Pipeworx pack and limited GDACS event management (only read operations), but these are workable with the provided meta-tools.

Resources