Skip to main content
Glama

Octopus Energy

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses the two routing paths, the exact verdict enum, the citation requirement, and a critical caller caveat: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. This is substantial behavioral context that directly affects how the agent should interpret results.

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 a dense, well-structured paragraph that opens with examples, states the use condition, explains the pipelines, lists return values, and flags the could_not_verify semantics. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be tightened with bullet points.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description fully explains return values (verdicts, grounded actual value, citation, reasoning), error cases, and the two execution paths. It also covers parameter semantics and caller caveats, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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?

The schema already describes both claim and tolerance_pct, but the description adds real-world claim examples and strategic guidance for tolerance_pct ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'), explaining how it overrides wording-implied tolerance. This adds meaning beyond the schema's range/default.

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 concrete user phrasings ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'), states a specific verb+object (natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources), and clearly differentiates from generic ask tools by focusing on true/false verification. It also outlines two distinct execution paths (SEC/XBRL fast path vs grounded pipeline), making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also partitions claim types (company-financial vs other) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it should be preferred over multi-step lookups. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or exclusions, so it slightly misses the top tier.

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

All Octopus Energy 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions and specific domains. However, there is potential for confusion between `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` (both route to data), and among the four polymarket tools, which could cause misselection if not read carefully.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: while all use snake_case, they mix verbs (`ask_`, `list_`, `bet_`, `scan_`), noun phrases (`entity_profile`, `product_details`, `recent_alerts`), and imperative verbs (`forget`, `remember`, `recall`). No single pattern is followed throughout, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server covers multiple domains (energy, general data, betting, memory, subscriptions) which feels heavy for a single server named 'Octopus Energy'. While each tool has a role, the scope is overly broad, and many tools are tangential to energy, suggesting the number could be reduced or better scoped.

Completeness3/5

For the energy domain, tools are present but only cover listing products and tariffs, missing account management or switching. For the broader domains (data, prediction markets), coverage is decent but lacks some expected features like browsing all available data sources or user profile management. The set is not fully comprehensive for any single purpose.

Resources