Skip to main content
Glama

Madrid Events

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it details the return values, the meaning of each verdict, and especially warns that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. This is critical operational transparency not available from annotations alone.

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?

Despite being lengthy, the description is efficiently structured: it opens with natural-language triggers, clearly separates the financial vs. general paths, enumerates output statuses, and ends with a warning about a critical edge case. Every section earns its place and no filler is present.

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 complex tool with two pipelines, multiple verdict statuses, and special warnings, the description covers purpose, usage, routing, output, and error semantics. It substantially compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining what callers receive and how to interpret results.

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?

While schema already documents both parameters with examples, the description adds nuanced meaning for tolerance_pct: it explains how to override the default for hallucination detection (set 1–2) and that the default is capped at 5. This goes beyond the raw schema description, justifying a score above baseline.

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 identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification with specific verb phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that...'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on verifying user statements and mentions replacing multiple sequential calls, making it specific to claim verification rather than general search or research.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing behavior for financial vs. other claims, giving clear context and practical guidance without needing exclusions.

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

All Madrid Events 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

The set contains several heavily overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants (with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now) and six polymarket-related tools that all orbit edge detection, arbitrage, and fill risk. An agent choosing among bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_kalshi_spread would have a hard time picking the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use readable snake_case, so the naming is not chaotic. However, the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are brand-style (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta), and some are noun-only phrases (events, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending). It is consistent in casing but not in structural convention.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well beyond the usual well-scoped range, and the count is inflated by multiple near-duplicate clusters for querying, prediction markets, and memory/subscription utilities. For a server named Madrid Events, this is especially disproportionate since only one tool actually relates to Madrid events.

Completeness2/5

Relative to the Madrid Events name, the domain coverage is almost entirely missing: only events addresses the stated purpose, and it is read-only with no detail view, booking, or management operations. If interpreted as the broader Pipeworx platform, coverage is richer, but the server's stated identity makes the gap severe.

Resources