Skip to main content
Glama

Startup Oracle

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it defines the verdict values, warns that could_not_verify means the check did not happen (with verification_error{stage,detail}) and must not be treated as evidence, clarifies unsupported, and explains it returns citations and reasoning. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that directly prevents misuse.

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, followed by a one-sentence usage directive, then clear paths, return values, and warnings. Every sentence adds unique information: routing logic, verdict definitions, verification_error clarification, and efficiency benefit. No padding 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what inputs look like, how it behaves internally (two paths), what the output structure is (verdict + value + citation + reasoning), edge-case semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported), and why it's efficient. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent to invoke or interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no unique parameter explanation—the claim examples and tolerance_pct semantics live entirely in the schema. However, the schema already thoroughly describes both parameters, including a default and cap for tolerance_pct, so the rating matches the guidance.

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 opens with concrete natural-language triggers and a clear verb-resource pair: "validate" + "claim" in "natural-language claim verification". It explicitly states the tool's scope (verifying factual claims) and distinguishes this from the many sibling research tools by focusing on a single-claim verification use case.

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?

States plainly: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also explains the two internal routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for everything else). It does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use rules, but the trigger phrases and scope give a clear context.

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

All Startup Oracle 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

ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is another variant of the same router, so an agent can easily misselect. Additionally, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all present as prediction-market opportunity finders with overlapping responsibilities.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, unsubscribe, validate_claim), but several break the pattern with noun phrases like polymarket_edges and pipeworx_trending, plus oddities like startup_oracle_evaluate. The mix is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well over the 25 threshold and the set is not tightly scoped: prediction markets alone account for six overlapping tools, and the server also bundles memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility checks. ask_pipeworx_beta adds a duplicate that does not earn its slot.

Completeness3/5

As a read-heavy research gateway, the surface is broad: lookups, profiles, comparisons, verification, deep research, discovery, and citation handling are covered, and the subscription/memory helpers have their own lifecycle operations. But the 'Startup Oracle' mission is thin — startup-specific evaluation is a single joke tool, and there is no way to update subscriptions or act on research findings beyond saving memory.

Resources