Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral nuance: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, unsupported means no source covers the claim, and the tool returns a specific verdict set with citation and reasoning. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with question-phrase triggers and a clear 'Use whenever' directive. Although longer than typical, each sentence adds value—routing logic, verdict meanings, error semantics, and efficiency benefit—and it is well-structured with 'IMPORTANT for callers' signaling.

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 covers return behavior: verdict values, the grounded/structured actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also explains error semantics (could_not_verify) and coverage semantics (unsupported), making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds meaning beyond bare field types: tolerance_pct overrides claim-wording tolerance, with practical values (1–2 for hallucination detection) and a default cap of 5. It also gives concrete examples for the claim parameter, making invocation clearer.

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 performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb 'validate' and resource 'claim'. It distinguishes from siblings by describing the company-financial SEC EDGAR fast path and grounded pipeline for other facts, and by noting it replaces sequential lookup calls.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the fast-path vs grounded routing and that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, but it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling.

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

All Odds Api 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct scopes, and the long cross-referencing descriptions help a lot. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx by the server's own description, and the polymarket_* family plus ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping boundaries that could mislead an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern like get_odds, list_sports, resolve_entity, and subscribe. A few exceptions such as odds_api_quota, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, and recall break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Odds Api'. Many tools are meta-platform utilities — memory, feedback, trending, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation — that have no obvious connection to an odds API and make the surface hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, get_scores, quota tracking, and subscriptions form a coherent read/monitor workflow. Minor gaps exist — no historical odds or a single-event detail endpoint — but agents can complete core odds research and monitoring tasks without dead ends.

Resources