Skip to main content
Glama

genderize

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max 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.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral traits: the six possible verdicts, the meaning of could_not_verify (a failure that is NOT evidence), and unsupported. It also warns callers not to present could_not_verify as evidence and notes that the tool collapses 4–6 sequential calls into one, providing rich, non-obvious context.

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 long but tightly woven: opening phrase examples, use case, routing logic, return values, error semantics, and a performance note—all essential. It is front-loaded with natural-language triggers and uses semicolons for structured flow, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a high-complexity tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return contract (verdict enum, actual value, citation, reasoning) and special cases (could_not_verify, unsupported). Combined with full parameter schema and safety annotations, the description leaves no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both claim and tolerance_pct have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds extra examples for claim and practical guidance for tolerance_pct (e.g., 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection'), which goes beyond the schema's baseline and enriches parameter understanding.

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 uses specific verbs like 'verify', 'fact check', 'confirm or refute' and names the resource as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on claim verification and explicitly stating it replaces multi-step lookups, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the routing for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops 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 genderize 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools route the same style of query to the same Pipeworx catalog: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap in purpose, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools also blur together, with bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all covering overlapping analysis territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the naming convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (predict_gender, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), and many share domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx or polymarket_. It is readable, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where the surface becomes hard to navigate. More importantly, the count does not match the server's apparent genderize identity: the vast majority of tools are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities bolted onto a two-tool gender-prediction core.

Completeness3/5

As a broad research assistant, the set is substantial: it covers question routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, memory, and subscriptions. However, the actual genderize domain is thin—just two prediction tools with no batch, supported-country, or accuracy endpoints—and several unrelated capabilities feel bolted on, making coverage uneven.

Resources