Skip to main content
Glama

Quotes

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it details the structured SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback, explains the meaning of could_not_verify (and that it is NOT evidence for/against), and distinguishes unsupported. This is crucial for correct agent behavior and goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and a clear definition, then systematically covers usage, internal routing, return values, and a critical caveat. While a bit long, every sentence provides unique value for a complex tool; there is minimal fluff. It's slightly denser than necessary but well-structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), the error semantics, and the two distinct processing paths. It also mentions efficiency (replaces 4–6 sequential calls). Given the tool's complexity and the rich annotations and schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% schema description coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only references the claim conceptually. Per the rubric baseline, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra parameter insight.

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 and specifically defines the tool as natural-language claim verification, using multiple trigger phrases like "fact check" and "verify the claim that…". It distinguishes this from general research tools by stating it checks whether 'something a user said is factually correct' and describes concrete verdict outputs. This clearly separates it from siblings like deep_research or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also clarifies the two distinct internal paths for financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but is clearly context-rich.

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

All Quotes 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

The tool set includes multiple similar tools (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants, several Polymarket tools) that could cause agent confusion. While each has a distinct purpose, the boundaries are subtle and descriptions lean heavily on jargon, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently. Most follow a noun_verb or verb_noun pattern, but some (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) start with a subject rather than an action, breaking a strict verb-first convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server feels overloaded. The name 'Quotes' suggests a narrow focus, yet the tool set spans fact-checking, company research, prediction markets, and more. Many tools are highly specialized or meta-tools, inflating the count without clear necessity.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of use cases, from quotes and literature to financial data and prediction markets. However, there are noticeable gaps in core areas (e.g., basic CRUD for quotes beyond search and random), and the sheer breadth creates dead ends for deep workflows.

Resources