Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds critical behavioral context: the two-path routing, the special meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check failed, not evidence), and 'unsupported' (no source found). It also discloses the return structure (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning).

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, purpose, routing, return values, and a critical caveat about 'could_not_verify'. Information is front-loaded and logically ordered.

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 and the failure mode. It covers the complex routing, verdict types, and error semantics, making it complete for a verification tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully describes both parameters (claim example, tolerance_pct range and override semantics). The description adds no new param-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It lists explicit trigger phrases and distinguishes between financial and non-financial claims, separating it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or compare_entities.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the routing logic (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise). It also implies when not to use (non-claim factual queries) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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

All Nasa 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

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunities. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read extensively to avoid selecting the wrong tool within each cluster.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions: get_*/search_* for NASA tools, ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* family prefixes, plus one-off names like entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research, recent_changes, and scan_dependency. There is no consistent verb_noun or family-wide pattern, making tool selection unpredictable despite each individual name being readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for a server named Nasa, and only 5 of them are actually NASA-related; the rest form a sprawling general data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription toolkit. The count is borderline defensible for a broad data assistant, but it is clearly unjustified under the server's stated NASA identity.

Completeness3/5

As a general data-research assistant the surface is quite complete: discovery, routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered. As a NASA server, however, there are notable gaps—no EONET events, Earth observation, exoplanet archive, or TLE/mission-specific data—and the large non-NASA tool surface does not fill those gaps.

Resources