Skip to main content
Glama

Valorant

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already note readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: two execution paths, the verdict vocabulary, and critical caller instructions that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be presented as evidence. It also explains the 'unsupported' verdict. This is exactly the kind of disclosure beyond annotations that agents need.

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 a dense paragraph but well-organized: example triggers → usage → financial vs. other claims → return values → caveats. Every sentence earns its place. It is slightly long, but the complexity justifies the length, making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It covers both the financial fast path and the grounded pipeline, explains special verdicts, and tells callers how to handle 'could_not_verify'. This is fully complete for a two-parameter tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches both parameters. It explains that 'claim' is a natural-language statement and provides examples. For 'tolerance_pct', it adds semantics not in the schema: it overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording, has a default capped at 5, and suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection. This exceeds the 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 clearly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific example phrasings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing it as a replacement for a multi-step pipeline (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison), even though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR path) and any other claim (grounded pipeline). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool relative to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Valorant 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

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded shares the same router. ai_visibility_check is internally wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, discover_tools and suggest_questions both claim 'use this FIRST' as onboarding meta-tools, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes pull overlapping EDGAR/news/patents data. The detailed descriptions help, but the redundancy is structural, not just cosmetic.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and several families are internally consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, list_*), but the overall set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (get_agent, compare_entities), noun_noun (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_changes), and adjective/compound forms (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, ai_visibility_check) with no dominant convention. Readable, but clearly heterogeneous.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ 'too many' threshold, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's stated identity: a server named 'Valorant' has only 4 game-related tools while the other 31 form a sprawling data-research/prediction-market/utility toolkit. Even considered on its own terms, the set includes several redundant meta-tools and unrelated subsystems (npm scanning, llms.txt generation, memory) that feel bolted on.

Completeness3/5

The dominant data-research domain is well covered: discovery, single and grounded queries, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim validation, and subscription monitoring form a mostly complete surface. However, the server's namesake domain is severely shallow — the Valorant tools only expose static reference data with no match/player/esports coverage — and the prediction-market side lacks obvious write-side or position-management operations.

Resources