Skip to main content
Glama

superhero

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 annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description goes beyond that by explaining the dual pipeline logic, the exact verdict vocabulary, and the nuanced semantics of could_not_verify (failed check, not evidence) vs unsupported (no source cover). This rich behavioral disclosure prevents misinterpretation and is not redundant with annotations.

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 well-structured: it front-loads trigger phrases, then clearly explains routing, verdicts, and edge-case warnings. Every sentence earns its place, and the closing 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' succinctly conveys the tool's composite value. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, when to use it, the two processing paths, the full set of verdict values, the content of the return (value, citation, reasoning), and the critical distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. This is sufficient for an agent to select, invoke, and correctly interpret the tool's response.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (claim with examples, tolerance_pct with default and allowed range). The description reinforces the natural-language nature of the claim and mentions approximately_correct, but it does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It uses specific verbs like 'verify', 'fact check', and 'confirm or refute' tied to a distinct resource, and it differentiates from siblings by describing the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for others) and the returned verdict types. This makes the scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and distinguishes between the structured fast path for company-financial claims and the grounded pipeline for all other factual claims. It also provides critical caller guidance on interpreting could_not_verify as 'the check did not happen' and unsupported as 'no source coverage', which is essential for correct usage.

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

All superhero 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
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by a huge number of unrelated tools for data lookup (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.), with only 4 superhero-specific tools. Many tools serve overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, suggest_questions all handle general queries), making it very difficult for an agent to distinguish the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: some tools use CamelCase (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools), others use snake_case (get_hero, list_all, compare_entities), and some use long descriptive phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This mixture makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is far too large for a server named 'superhero'. Most tools are unrelated to superheroes, making the set seem bloated and misaligned with the server's stated purpose. A focused superhero server would need at most 10 tools.

Completeness1/5

For the superhero domain, the tool set is severely incomplete: only basic retrieval of heroes and powerstats, with no search, filtering, creation, comparison, or battle mechanisms. For the broader data access domain it is more complete, but that is not the server's name.

Resources