Skip to main content
Glama

Gov Auctions

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds critical behavioral nuance that annotations can't: the distinction between could_not_verify (check failed, not evidence) and unsupported (no source covers it), the routing logic between SEC/XBRL and the grounded pipeline, and the inclusion of citations. This is transparent and doesn't contradict 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place. It opens with trigger phrases, then states purpose, then covers routing, outputs, and critical caller warnings, ending with the value proposition of replacing multiple calls. The structure is front-loaded and logically organized, with no filler or redundancy.

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 explains return values (verdict types, actual value, citation, reasoning) and the nuanced meaning of error states. It also covers both routing paths and provides usage intent. Combined with strong annotations, this description is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 both parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it gives concrete example claims for 'claim', and for 'tolerance_pct' it explains the override behavior, default derivation from the wording, and recommended values for hallucination detection. This elevates the parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 and specifically states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It uses strong verbs like 'verify', 'fact check', and 'check', and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on claims that return a verdict rather than open-ended Q&A. It also details the two internal pipelines (structured SEC/XBRL for financial claims, grounded for all others), making the scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' This is clear and actionable. It also explains that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying a composite use case. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All Gov Auctions 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same question-answering niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by its own description), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim are easy to confuse. The polymarket suite also has overlapping edge/arbitrage/fill-risk boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve onboarding. The verbose descriptions help, but the set as a whole creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow clear snake_case verb_noun or domain-prefix patterns (auctions_search, polymarket_edges, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget). Minor inconsistencies exist: auction_lot_details is singular while the auction group is plural, and polymarket_edges versus polymarket_edge_tracker breaks the prefix pattern slightly. Overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Gov Auctions': only 5 tools actually concern auctions, while the rest are general Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools. Even as a general data platform, the count is heavy and includes several overlapping meta-tools.

Completeness4/5

For the auction-specific surface, the set covers search, lot details, closing-soon, historical sold prices, and data coverage, which is a solid read-only lifecycle. The main gaps are non-critical: no auction-category browser, no auction-specific alert/subscription type, and no bidding workflow. The broad research/esolution tools fill in most adjacent data needs even if they dilute the server's stated focus.

Resources