Skip to main content
Glama

Tomtom

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the verdict vocabulary, the crucial could_not_verify vs. unsupported distinction, and the error object format. It also explains the SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path and grounded pipeline routing. This adds substantial context beyond the safe-read annotation.

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 long but information-dense. Trigger phrases at the start front-load utility, and caveats about could_not_verify are essential for correct call handling. Every sentence contributes value; the only minor inefficiency is the repeated trigger phrase list, but it aids recognition.

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?

This is a complex tool with no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It covers return values, verdict semantics, error handling, evidence citations, and routing logic. It also explains the tool's relationship to other tools by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making the description complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 fully (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the tolerance implied by claim wording, is capped at 5, and is useful for hallucination detection. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description.

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 distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly defining scope (company-financial vs. any other factual claim) and positioning itself as a single-call replacement for multi-step verification. The verb 'verify' and resource 'claims' are specific and 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?

The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates the two internal routing paths based on claim type. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools, though the phrase 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' implies preference over manual pipelines.

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

All Tomtom 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are variants of the same router, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all operate in the same prediction-market space. The extremely detailed descriptions help an agent differentiate, but misselection risk remains real.

Naming Consistency4/5

Snake_case is used consistently and most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, discover_tools), with predictable polymarket_ and pipeworx_ family prefixes. Minor deviations exist — entity_profile and recent_alerts are noun/adjective phrases, generate_llms_txt embeds a file extension, and single-word verbs (remember, route, geocode) break the strict pattern — but overall naming is coherent.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server exceeds the comfortable range and bundles many unrelated domains: data lookup, prediction markets, geocoding/navigation, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. While every tool has a distinct purpose, the surface is heavy and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Each major cluster has strong lifecycle coverage: data lookup (router, grounded mode, deep research, discovery), company research (resolve, profile, compare, changes), prediction markets (research, arb, edges, fill risk, cross-venue spread), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts). Minor gaps exist — no direct Polymarket order placement and no explicit tool for fetching pipeworx:// URIs (left to resources) — but agents can accomplish the stated purposes.

Resources