Skip to main content
Glama

trivia

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/idempotent, but the description adds substantial context: routing to SEC EDGAR vs grounded pipeline, the full verdict set, the crucial caveat that could_not_verify is not evidence, and what unsupported means. This goes well beyond 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?

Although long, every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, routing logic, return values, caveats, and efficiency note. It is front-loaded with natural-language triggers and well-structured for a complex tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing verdict enum values, explaining error and unsupported semantics, and describing the citation format. It covers all necessary usage contexts, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for tolerance_pct (overrides implied tolerance, suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection) and gives concrete examples of claim, enhancing understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 gives specific verbs like 'fact check', 'verify', 'confirm or refute' and distinct scopes (company financials vs other facts), distinguishing it from sibling Q&A tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

All trivia 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have notably unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research heavily overlap in surfacing betting opportunities. Entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also share overlapping research scope, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use snake_case and a roughly readable verb_noun style (resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_categories), but conventions vary: some are bare nouns (entity_profile), some are plain verbs (remember, forget), and ask_pipeworx/pipeworx_* break the pattern. It is readable overall, but not a consistent scheme.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far more than the 'trivia' name implies, and most of them (Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions) are unrelated to trivia. The set reads as an entire platform bundled together rather than a purpose-scoped server.

Completeness2/5

For the stated trivia purpose, the surface is missing core lifecycle features like quiz sessions, answer validation, or scoring; the few trivia tools are just category/reference lookups. As a general data/research server it is broad, but there are significant gaps and no coherent domain model tying the tools together.

Resources