Skip to main content
Glama

Spoonacular

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the meanings of each verdict, the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', the routing logic, and the warning that 'could_not_verify' must not be shown as evidence. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps agents interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and a clear purpose. Every sentence contributes distinct value: routing, return values, caveats, and efficiency. No filler or repetition, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage to outcomes.

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 return values, error semantics, and the distinction between inconclusive results and failed verification. It covers routing for both financial and non-financial claims, parameter semantics, and practical usage. For a tool of this complexity, the description is exceptionally complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description complements it by providing a concrete example of the 'claim' parameter and explaining how 'tolerance_pct' overrides implied wording, including a use-case hint for hallucination detection. This adds semantic depth without being redundant.

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 natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim') and a concrete list of verdict types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing it as a single call replacing 4–6 sequential steps, and by detailing the financial vs. other-claim routing.

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 states explicitly when to use the tool ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and gives examples of appropriate prompts. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but it does describe the internal fall-through pipeline, which provides context for choosing this over other grounded Q&A tools.

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

All Spoonacular 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set bundles three unrelated domains, and within them several tools are near-indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded overlaps with validate_claim, bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all target betting opportunities, and meal_plan_generate duplicates meal_plan_week. The aspect-specific recipe fetchers (ingredients/nutrition/summary/taste) also blur with recipe_information.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a reasonable snake_case verb_noun pattern (recipe_search, resolve_entity, compare_entities, unsubscribe), and each cluster (recipe_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*) is internally consistent. However, conventions fragment across clusters — bare verb memory tools (remember, forget, recall), the ask_pipeworx_beta/_grounded suffix family, and the odd generate_llms_txt — so no single predictable scheme governs the whole surface.

Tool Count2/5

49 tools is far too many for a coherent surface, and crucially the count is misaligned with the server's stated identity: only 18 of 49 tools actually belong to the Spoonacular food domain, while 27 are Pipeworx data/prediction-market tools and 3 are generic memory utilities. The server appears to be three products mashed into one.

Completeness3/5

For the core Spoonacular food domain the surface is reasonably complete — search for recipes/products/ingredients, detail fetchers, meal plans, wine pairing, and unit conversion all exist. But the overwhelming presence of unrelated Pipeworx and memory tools makes the server's actual purpose ambiguous, and gaps are hard to assess when the food tools share the namespace with SEC filings and Polymarket arbitrage.

Resources