Skip to main content
Glama

Usaspending

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses important behavioral traits: the meaning of each verdict type, the critical caveat that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and the two different processing pipelines. This adds significant value 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?

The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and a concise definition, then methodically covers usage, processing, return values, and caveats. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two pipelines, multiple verdict types, error semantics) and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains return values, citations, the meaning of key verdicts, and the processing flow, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including the meaning and default of tolerance_pct. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond 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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool, with explicit trigger phrases and a specific verb-resource pair ('verify factual claims against authoritative sources'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking and the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else).

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?

The description explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing direct usage context. It also outlines the automatic routing for financial vs. non-financial claims, and notes that it replaces multiple sequential calls, giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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

All Usaspending 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are essentially the same router with different output modes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. There is also meaningful overlap between entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim, and the USAspending profile/search tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case with useful prefixes like ask_, polymarket_, and usa_, which helps grouping. However, the underlying convention is mixed: some are verb+object, some are noun phrases, and some are bare verbs, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well beyond the heavy range, and most of them are unrelated to USAspending: Polymarket betting, npm dependency checks, AI visibility, memory storage, and meta-tools. The actual USAspending-specific surface is only about seven tools, making the server feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The federal-contract cluster covers award search, recipient/incumbent profiles, expiring awards, and spending by agency/category/trend, which handles the main contracting questions. Missing award-detail retrieval, grants/assistance coverage, and open-solicitation lookup, which usa_expiring_awards explicitly punts to external samgov/govcon tools.

Resources