Skip to main content
Glama

Stratz

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond this: it explains the two routing paths, the exact verdict values, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (including the critical warning that it is not evidence), and the citation/reasoning return format. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 earns its place, covering query phrasing, usage, dual pipeline, return values, and error semantics. It is front-loaded with examples and clearly structured into readable segments. Slightly padded by the example phrases but still efficient 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (verdict, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, reasoning) and the meaning of edge-case verdicts like 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. It also explains the internal routing and the efficiency benefit, making it complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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%, with both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' already well documented. The description body does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3. No credit is needed for the schema's own richness.

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 explicitly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a clear verb ('verify', 'fact check') and resource ('claims'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the verdict output and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique 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 clearly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also details the two processing paths (structured SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all else), providing strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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

All Stratz 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or intentionally duplicated purposes: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta currently behave identically, and the Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) presents multiple scanners with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but the set as a whole is hard to navigate without close reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare single nouns (hero, match, meta, remember, forget), snake_case verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_feedback, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-verb convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 43 tools, the server bundles at least five unrelated domains (Dota 2 stats, Pipeworx data querying, Polymarket analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). That is far too many for a focused MCP server, and the mix makes the surface feel like a grab bag rather than a purpose-built toolkit.

Completeness4/5

Each subdomain individually has solid coverage: Dota 2 has heroes/matches/players/tournaments/meta plus a GraphQL fallback, the data layer has discovery + routing + grounding + validation, and memory/subscriptions have full lifecycle operations. The only real gap is cohesion across domains; within each slice there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources