Skip to main content
Glama

Tcgdex

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations with critical behavioral details: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (a failure, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source), the routing logic, and the performance note about replacing 4-6 sequential calls. No contradiction 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?

Despite being long, every sentence delivers unique value: examples, usage, routing, return values, and critical caveats. The structure is logical, moving from user intent to implementation to result interpretation. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description fully covers return values: verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning. It also explains error semantics and performance benefits. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds context about percent-delta math and tolerance overriding, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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 identifies the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It includes specific example phrasings ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and describes the dual-path mechanism. It distinguishes itself from research tools by focusing on fact-checking with verdict outputs.

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?

States 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing explicit usage context. It also explains the two internal paths for financial vs. other claims. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use other tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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

All Tcgdex 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

The four card tools are distinct, but the majority of the server is a Pipeworx/prediction-market platform with heavily overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical twin of ask_pipeworx. The six Polymarket tools and the ai_visibility/scan_competitor pair also have fuzzy boundaries that would make tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the pattern is highly inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_card, search_cards, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), some are noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, bet_research), and some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The ask_pipeworx variants share a name but differ only by suffix, which is not a clear action-oriented pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is squarely in the 'too many' territory, and the bloat is worse because the server is named Tcgdex while only 4 of 35 tools actually relate to trading cards. The remaining 31 tools form a sprawling multi-domain platform that mixes data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and one-off utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.

Completeness4/5

For the TCGdex card surface, the read-only workflows are covered well: search_cards leads to get_card, and list_sets leads to get_set, with no obvious dead ends. For the broader Pipeworx functionality, the set includes discovery, query, grounding, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, so the main workflows are supported—though the overall scope is sprawling rather than focused.

Resources