Skip to main content
Glama

Tfl

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite strong annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial context: it explains the fast path for company financial claims with percent-delta math, the fallback grounded pipeline, the detailed verdict list, and critical caller semantics for 'could_not_verify' (with verification_error) and 'unsupported.' There is no contradiction between the description and 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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place. It opens with invocation examples, quickly moves to purpose, then covers pipeline, return values, and error semantics. The structure is front-loaded with the core definition and uses bolded terms for emphasis, making it scannable without wasted words.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdicts, evidence, reasoning) and error cases. It covers both processing paths and notes the tool replaces 4-6 sequential calls, which gives the agent a clear model of the tool's internal workflow and edge cases. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description enriches the claim parameter by providing natural-language trigger phrases and an example, and explains processing implications like 'exact percent-delta math' that affect tolerance_pct usage. It adds practical nuance beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource combination: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking and outlining two distinct processing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company financials, grounded pipeline for other claims). The scope is precise and immediately recognizable.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies behavior for 'could_not_verify' versus 'unsupported,' giving exclusion criteria. This goes beyond vague guidance and directly tells when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Tfl 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools with similar functions, causing potential confusion. Most other tools are clearly differentiated, but the overlap in query and betting tools reduces clarity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and some are very short (arrivals). Lengths vary widely, and there is no uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a coherent server; the scope is too broad, spanning transport, data lookups, prediction markets, and utilities. This suggests a lack of focus, making the server feel like a bundled collection rather than a well-scoped toolkit.

Completeness3/5

The server covers multiple domains but lacks depth. London transport tools are partial (e.g., no real-time tube positions), and domains like weather or stock quotes rely on the ask_pipeworx meta-tool rather than dedicated tools. The surface is broad but not comprehensively complete in any area.

Resources