Skip to main content
Glama

Openrouter

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already marking the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds crucial behavioral context: it explains the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, must not be used as evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source covered), plus the tolerance_pct override behavior. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries useful information. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and purpose, and the detailed verdict/error explanations are valuable. It could be restructured for easier scanning, but it is not bloated.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict, cited value, reasoning), error semantics, and special cases. It also explains the two execution paths, 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.

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter understanding: it explains how tolerance_pct overrides claim wording, suggests setting 1–2 for hallucination detection, and clarifies the default cap of 5. This adds practical guidance beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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, with specific trigger phrases and examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it replaces a multi-step pipeline and covers both structured SEC/EDGAR and general factual claims.

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 provides an explicit 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and details the routing logic for different claim types. However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit alternative differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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

All Openrouter 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and the polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, and polymarket_fill_risk tools all orbit market-opportunity analysis from slightly different angles. The descriptions are unusually detailed and often say when to prefer one tool over another, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_models, get_model, resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency), with predictable domain prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*. A few noun-first names like entity_profile, bet_research, and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly, but the overall convention is readable and coherent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' range, especially for a server named Openrouter that actually spans several unrelated domains: model catalog, Pipeworx data retrieval, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, and website tooling. Many individual tools are justified, but the set is overstuffed and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

Each sub-domain is reasonably covered: model catalog has list/get/compare, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and Pipeworx querying has multiple modes plus discovery. However, a server named Openrouter exposes no way to actually run completions or route requests through OpenRouter, and the unrelated bundled domains make the overall surface feel scattered rather than complete.

Resources