Skip to main content
Glama

Speedrun

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals critical behavioral nuances: the existence of two processing paths, the meaning of each verdict, and especially the crucial caveat that 'could_not_verify' does not constitute evidence and carries a verification_error. It also explains the 'unsupported' verdict. This adds substantial context beyond annotation hints.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: examples, usage context, pathway logic, output summary, and crucial error semantics. It is front-loaded with user phrasings and flows logically from usage to behavior to caveats. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input parsing, dual pipelines, verdict types, citation details, error semantics, and the efficiency benefit. It leaves little ambiguity for an AI agent deciding to invoke the tool and interpreting results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter understanding with concrete examples for 'claim' and explains how 'tolerance_pct' overrides the implied tolerance, its valid range, default behavior, and a use case for hallucination detection. This goes well beyond the schema's raw field descriptions.

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 performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, using specific verbs like 'verify', 'fact check', and 'confirm or refute'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly focusing on fact-checking and by describing how it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides a clear decision tree: company-financial claims use a structured SEC EDGAR path, while all other claims automatically route to the grounded pipeline. This gives unambiguous when-to-use guidance and contrasts with alternative approaches.

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

All Speedrun 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

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in data querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, etc.) and prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). Detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the number of similar-sounding tools increases the chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names show mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (e.g., find_user, list_subscriptions), others are noun_verb (e.g., entity_profile, bet_research), and there are prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. While subgroups are internally consistent, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools spanning speedrun.com queries, Pipeworx data access, memory management, subscriptions, and prediction markets, the server bundles multiple domains. The scope is too broad for a coherent single server; splitting into separate servers would improve usability.

Completeness4/5

Within each domain (speedrun.com, Pipeworx, Polymarket), the tool set covers key operations comprehensively, including research, arbitrage, fill risk, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to place bets), but the overall surface is well-covered for the advertised functionalities.

Resources