Skip to main content
Glama

Scream Void

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max 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.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: the exact meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, must not be shown as evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source found). It also explains the two pipeline paths (SEC EDGAR vs grounded fallback). Annotations are not contradicted.

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 section earns its place: trigger phrases, usage scope, pipeline routing, return types, and crucial error semantics. It is slightly repetitive at the start but well-structured and front-loaded. Overall appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning) and covers the important edge cases of 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. It also gives performance context. The combination of annotations, schema, and description leaves no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions tolerance only indirectly via the financial math path. The schema descriptions are already rich, so no additional parameter guidance is necessary.

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, returning a verdict. It gives explicit trigger phrases and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a focused fact-checking tool rather than general Q&A or research.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and outlines the fallback path for non-financial claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the highest anchor.

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

All Scream Void 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap significantly in purpose, especially the ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and deep_research, as well as the polymarket arbitrage/edges/fill_risk/kalshi_spread suite. It would be hard for an agent to reliably choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle distinctions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case, but there is no consistent prefix or verb pattern. Some names are descriptive phrases (e.g., scream_void_scream, compare_entities) while others are vague (e.g., forget, recall). The mix of 'pipeworx_' prefix on some tools and lack of it on others adds inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a data research server, given the overlapping functionality. Some tools could be merged (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket tools). However, the count is not excessive enough to be unmanageable, and each tool serves a specific niche.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of data sources and prediction market analysis, with tools for research, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update stored memories or manage subscriptions beyond CRUD), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources