Skip to main content
Glama

Va Museum

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral nuance: it distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (pipeline failure) from 'unsupported' (no source exists) and warns that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. It also explains internal routing between structured SEC data and the grounded pipeline.

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 long but information-dense and front-loaded with trigger phrases that make matching user intent easy. Every sentence serves a purpose: scope, routing, return values, error semantics, and a performance-oriented note about replacing sequential calls.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates fully by enumerating the possible verdicts, mentioning the actual value and pipeworx:// citation, and explaining the two error-like verdicts in sufficient detail. It also gives the agent a clear model of tool behavior and failure conditions, making it 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.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: for tolerance_pct it explains how it overrides the claim-wording default, caps at 5, and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. The claim parameter is illustrated with concrete examples in the schema, and the description clarifies how it drives the entire validation flow.

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 a specific verb + resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a distinct set of user-intent trigger phrases. It differentiates itself from general ask/deep-research tools by scoping to fact-checking and by describing its two internal pipelines (SEC EDGAR vs grounded).

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which is clear usage guidance. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent without confusion.

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

All Va Museum 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 is notable overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded (same underlying data query, different answer modes), and multiple polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) can confuse agents about which to use for a given betting query. Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are clear, but the mix of museum, financial, and prediction market tools under one server increases ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: some start with a verb (search_objects, list_subscriptions, remember) while others start with a noun or modifier (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). The 'ask_' prefix is used twice, but overall there is no single predictable convention like verb_noun across the set.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is high but not excessive for a general-purpose data server. However, the server is named 'Va Museum' which implies a narrow domain, making the count seem bloated. The set includes many tools unrelated to a museum (e.g., prediction markets, SEC filings), so the count is appropriate only if the server's actual scope is broad and multi-domain.

Completeness2/5

For a museum-focused server, the tool surface is severely incomplete, with only two museum-specific tools (search_objects, get_object) out of 29. Even as a general-purpose server, it lacks tools for common operations like updating or deleting resources, and the coverage of domains (e.g., no tool for creating or managing user data) feels ad hoc rather than systematically complete.

Resources