Skip to main content
Glama

Predictit

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it warns that 'could_not_verify' means the check didn't happen (not evidence against the claim) and that 'unsupported' means no source coverage. This goes beyond annotation-provided safety info.

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 dense but well-structured, with front-loaded example phrasings. Each sentence contributes (routing logic, verdict list, error semantics, efficiency note), though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing possible verdicts, explaining the failure semantics, and mentioning the actual value and citation. It covers the tool's routing behavior and parameter use. Minor gaps like exact output structure are acceptable at this complexity level.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds extra value by explaining tolerance_pct semantics (overrides implied tolerance, capped at 5, use 1–2 for hallucination detection) and gives a concrete claim example, enriching the bare schema.

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 purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It uses explicit verbs ('verify', 'fact check') and provides example phrasings, distinguishing it from generic search or research tools.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving clear when-to-use context. It also notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying efficiency, but does not name specific sibling tools for comparison or exclusion.

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

All Predictit 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but pairs like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded and bet_research/polymarket_edges could cause confusion without careful reading. Overall, descriptions are clear enough to differentiate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun pattern, but several are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage) creating inconsistency. Still readable due to descriptive terms.

Tool Count4/5

33 tools is slightly high but justified given the broad scope (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). Each tool serves a specific role, so the count feels appropriate for the platform's capabilities.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers data retrieval, prediction market analysis, memory management, and subscriptions well. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct betting tool), but core workflows are supported comprehensively.

Resources