Skip to main content
Glama

Space 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.

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it explains the meaning of each verdict, especially the crucial distinction between "could_not_verify" (a failed check, not evidence) and "unsupported" (no source found). It also discloses the two execution paths (structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL vs. grounded pipeline) and warns callers not to treat could_not_verify as supporting or refuting a claim. No contradiction with 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 longer than average but every sentence contributes essential information: trigger phrases, use case, routing logic, return structure, verdict semantics, and efficiency benefit. It is front-loaded with the most important usage cues. Slight redundancy exists (e.g., "grounded pipeline" vs. "routed to the right live source"), but overall it is well-structured 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: a verdict, grounded/structured value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It covers both financial and non-financial claims, explains the two distinct failure modes (could_not_verify vs. unsupported), and provides caller guidance on how to interpret the results. This is complete for the tool's complexity and no gaps are evident.

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% for both parameters, and the schema descriptions are already detailed. The description adds some context about "exact percent-delta math" and tolerance being capped at 5, which aligns with the tolerance_pct parameter, but it doesn't fundamentally expand parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 claim verification resource: "natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources." It includes trigger phrases like "fact check" and "verify the claim that…" and distinguishes itself by covering both company-financial claims (via SEC EDGAR/XBRL) and any other factual claim (grounded pipeline). It also states it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its role unambiguous.

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." It also explains how it handles different claim types (financial vs. non-financial) and that it collapses a multi-step pipeline into one call. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to use instead or state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Space 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same niche: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical duplicate of ask_pipeworx when no experiment is active, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all overlap as question-answering entry points. Other families like entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence also blur together despite long disambiguating descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use a clean, readable snake_case style, and there are strong prefix families like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, list_, and scan_. However, the set is not uniformly verb_noun: entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, and several others are noun phrases rather than actions, so the pattern is mostly consistent but not strict.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold where a server starts feeling bloated, and the server name 'Space Feeds' suggests a narrow niche while most of the surface is a general data research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform. Each tool may be useful, but as a set the scope is sprawling rather than focused.

Completeness4/5

The major workflows have good lifecycle coverage: data lookup and grounded verification, entity resolution and profiling, prediction-market analysis, memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), and feed reading (list/read/fetch) are all represented. Minor gaps include a direct pipeworx:// citation reader and feed curation or management operations, but agents can work around those.

Resources