Skip to main content
Glama

Mlb Stats

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 the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it explains the return verdict set, the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen, not evidence), and unsupported (no source covered). It also discloses the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR structured and grounded pipeline), which is valuable behavioral 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?

Despite being dense, the description front-loads example intents, then explains behavior, error semantics, and efficiency in a structured way. No sentence is wasted; the tradeoff of 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?

Since no output schema is present, the description compensates by enumerating the verdict values, the payload (actual value + citation + reasoning), and distinguishing error states. It also explains the two-path execution and the semantics of the responses, making the tool self-contained for an agent.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters comprehensively, so the description carries no extra parameter semantics; it only reinforces the claim example. The mention of 'exact percent-delta math' hints at tolerance behavior but adds little beyond the schema's tolerance_pct description.

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 canonical user phrasings and explicitly states it performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources,' clearly distinguishing it from general research or search sibling tools. It also specifies financial vs non-financial routing, making the tool's purpose concrete.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear invocation condition. It differentiates between company-financial claims and other claims but does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or define explicit exclusions.

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

All Mlb Stats 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Severe overlap between entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) has fuzzy boundaries that would confuse an agent picking one. Entity lookups (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim) also overlap on company data. The stakes are raised by the server being named 'Mlb Stats' while most tools are unrelated general-data tools, compounding misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

There is internal consistency within families — the 7 MLB tools share a clean get_ prefix, and the Poly tools share a polymarket_ prefix — but the overall set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*), and descriptive compounds (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt) with no unifying convention. The 'Mlb Stats' server name bears no relation to the dominant ask_pipeworx/deep_research naming, which further breaks pattern expectations.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and more importantly the bulk of them (SEC filings, FRED economics, Polymarket arbitrage, npm scanning, AI visibility, subscriptions) have nothing to do with the server's stated MLB purpose. Only 7 of 38 tools are actually baseball-related, so the count is both too high for the labeled scope and misallocated.

Completeness3/5

The 7 MLB tools cover teams, rosters, schedule/scores, standings, player profiles, season stats, and batter-vs-pitcher history — a solid read-only core. However, obvious gaps remain: no per-game box scores, no league leaders, no team offensive/pitching stats, no live game detail beyond final scores. The Pipeworx catch-all router technically fills data gaps but leaves the MLB-specific surface incomplete.

Resources