Skip to main content
Glama

Science Feeds

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses crucial behavior: two-tier routing, return verdicts, and the important semantic distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source). This directly prevents misuse of inconclusive results.

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 trigger phrases and purpose, then covers routing, returns, and critical caveats in a logical order. Despite its length, every sentence carries necessary information for safe invocation.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict enum, evidence with citation, reasoning) and error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also covers scope, routing, and parameter context, making it complete for a complex tool.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about percent-delta math and tolerance behavior, but the schema already documents these; no significant new parameter meaning is added.

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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool with specific trigger phrases and a verdict output. It distinguishes itself from sibling research/entity tools by focusing on true/false verification and even notes it replaces a multi-step pipeline.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the internal routing between SEC EDGAR and the grounded pipeline. It mentions replacing 4-6 sequential calls, but does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All Science Feeds 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical in behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, and the six-tool Polymarket cluster (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) requires careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but several tools present real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a mostly verb-first or resource-first pattern (ask_, list_, fetch_, read_, subscribe, validate_claim). Minor deviations like entity_profile and recent_changes break the verb-noun pattern slightly, but the overall naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for the 'Science Feeds' name, which implies a narrow feed-reading service; only 3 tools actually relate to feeds. The rest form a broad Pipeworx grab bag (memory, npm scanning, AI visibility, prediction markets, feedback), making the set feel unfocused and overweight.

Completeness4/5

For the broad query/research domain the descriptions actually establish, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookups, grounded/refusal-safe answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. The literal science-feed surface is thin, but the toolkit as a whole has few dead ends.

Resources