Skip to main content
Glama

Tarot Draw

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it defines each verdict, warns that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and clarifies unsupported vs. could_not_verify. This is valuable 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and usage, then systematically explains routing, verdicts, and error semantics. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff.

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?

The tool is complex and has no output schema, but the description covers return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), explains special error cases (could_not_verify, unsupported), and even mentions the performance benefit over sequential calls. This makes the description sufficiently complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The tolerance_pct behavior (default, cap, override) is fully explained in the schema, so baseline 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 a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It lists trigger phrases, distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, and outlines two distinct verification paths (structured SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline).

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates use cases for financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, 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 Tarot Draw 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool families have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, suggest_questions and discover_tools are near-duplicates, and ai_visibility_check is a subset of scan_competitor_ai_presence. The five polymarket_* tools are heavily overlapping in purpose and rely on long descriptions to distinguish them, which an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and there are helpful prefixes (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*), but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: verb-first names (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, scan_dependency) sit alongside noun-first names (bet_research, entity_profile, recent_changes) and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember). Sub-families are internally consistent, but the set as a whole follows no single convention.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is over the 'too many' threshold, and the scope is a grab-bag rather than a focused server: data research, prediction-market analysis, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, memory utilities, subscriptions, and exactly one tarot tool. The server is named 'Tarot Draw' yet 31 of 32 tools serve a completely different purpose, making the count wildly mismatched to the apparent identity.

Completeness2/5

For the inferred Pipeworx data/prediction-market domain the coverage is genuinely deep — ask/grounded/deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, validation, subscriptions, alerts, edge tracking, and arbitrage all exist. But for the stated purpose ('Tarot Draw'), the surface is one draw tool with no deck details, spreads, reading history, or reversal support, and the data tools' domain is so diffuse that an agent cannot rely on the set forming a coherent workflow.

Resources