Skip to main content
Glama

Grants Gov

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the full list of verdicts, the semantic difference between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', the presence of verification_error{stage,detail}, and instructions not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place. It is well-structured: trigger phrases, purpose, pipeline branching, return values, and critical caller caveats. No filler, though the length could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description inventories the complete return envelope: verdict values, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also explains failure modes ('could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported') and the two processing paths, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance for tolerance_pct: default behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5), override semantics, and a specific use case (hallucination detection with 1–2%). This goes beyond the schema and helps callers set the parameter correctly.

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 explicit trigger phrases and immediately defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It distinguishes between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path) and any other factual claim (grounded pipeline), clearly setting it apart from 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies the routing for two claim types and explains that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen, which prevents misuse of the tool's results.

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

All Grants Gov 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all handle broad queries; multiple Polymarket tools exist for edge finding; entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/resolve_entity overlap on company data. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are mixed: some use verb_noun (search_opportunities, get_opportunity), some are phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edge_tracker), and some are vague (recall, forget). No consistent convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is high, but the core issue is that the server name 'Grants Gov' implies a narrow focus, yet only 2 tools are about grants. The sheer number of unrelated tools makes the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the actual domain of general data querying and prediction markets, the tool surface is fairly complete, covering many sources. However, for 'Grants Gov' it is severely incomplete (missing all but opportunities). Overall, the scope is broad but lacks depth in any one area.

Resources