Skip to main content
Glama

Steam

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the two execution paths, the exact verdict set, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' with verification_error (and the warning not to treat it as evidence), and the pipeworx:// citation format. This is rich behavioral detail that annotations do not provide.

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 typical but well-structured: trigger phrases, usage guidance, execution paths, return values, and caller warnings. Each section earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 compensates by explaining return verdicts, the meaning of each non-obvious outcome, the reasoning and citation, and the scenario where verification does not happen. For a tool with 2 params and no output schema, this is exceptionally complete.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters with examples, the description adds critical semantics: tolerance_pct overrides the claim-wording implied tolerance, is capped at 5, and should be set to 1-2 for hallucination detection. It also clarifies that the default tolerance is inferred from the claim wording, adding value beyond the schema.

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, with specific trigger phrases and a concrete verb+resource ('validate claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking with a verdict output, not 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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and differentiates the company-financial fast path from the generic grounded pipeline. It does not name alternative tools, but the 'when to use' context is clear and actionable.

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

All Steam 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve meta/onboarding purposes. The Steam-specific tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large unrelated set (Polymarket, Pipeworx, npm scanning) that makes selection confusing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (resolve_vanity_url, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-only (app_details, player_stats), and others use domain prefixes inconsistently (polymarket_arbitrage, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). The mix of descriptive and vague names (process, run, execute) adds to the inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially for a server named 'Steam' where only about a third of the tools actually relate to Steam. The rest belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other unrelated domains, making the scope unclear and the tool count far too large for a focused purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the Steam domain, the server covers a reasonable range: app details/news, player counts, friends, owned games, achievements, stats, bans, levels, and summaries. However, notable gaps exist such as store search, reviews, wishlist, or any user inventory/trading features. The non-Steam tools add breadth but do not address these missing Steam operations.

Resources