Skip to main content
Glama

Tankerkoenig

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds valuable non-obvious semantics: `could_not_verify` means the check failed and must not be treated as evidence, while `unsupported` means no source was found. It also discloses the use of verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations and the internal routing logic, going well beyond the annotations.

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 fairly long but well-structured: trigger phrases lead, followed by purpose, routing, return format, and important caller caveats labeled with 'IMPORTANT for callers'. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing critical information.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and defines all possible verdict states. It also covers error handling and the difference between `could_not_verify` and `unsupported`, making it fully complete for callers to interpret results correctly.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with examples, and coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema, particularly for `tolerance_pct` (overrides claim-wording default, recommended 1–2 for hallucination detection, default capped at 5), which enriches parameter understanding 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 states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify'. It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by focusing on confirm/refute verdicts and consolidating multiple lookup steps, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains routing between the SEC EDGAR fast path and the general grounded pipeline. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Tankerkoenig 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer research questions; polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage overlap heavily on prediction-market opportunities; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap on company research. The detailed descriptions help, but the clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a readable snake_case convention, many with verb_noun structure (resolve_entity, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, scan_dependency). Minor deviations exist: tankerkoenig_stations_nearby plural vs tankerkoenig_station_details/prices singular, plus noun-style names like pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending, but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and the problem is compounded by the server being named Tankerkoenig: only 3 of the 34 tools relate to German fuel prices while the other 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory/subscription toolkit. This is a sprawling, unfocused surface rather than a well-scoped set.

Completeness3/5

For the nominal Tankerkoenig domain, stations_nearby + station_details + prices cover core lookups, though station search by name and price history are missing. For the broader bundled data/prediction-market domain, coverage is extensive but has notable gaps such as no trade execution, no general web search, and several redundant access paths that complicate the surface.

Resources