Skip to main content
Glama

wger

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial context beyond annotations: the could_not_verify verdict means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, unsupported means no source exists, and the dual-path architecture (structured SEC EDGAR vs. grounded fallback) is revealed. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know.

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 longer than a minimal two-sentence summary but every section serves a purpose: query examples, purpose, routing, return values, and the critical could_not_verify caveat. It is appropriately front-loaded. Some redundancy exists between 'natural-language claim verification' and 'check whether...' but it remains efficient.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the verdict values, mentioning the pipeworx:// citation and reasoning fields, and explaining the two failure modes (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). It also covers the internal processing paths and the tolerance semantics. This is complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 has 100% coverage; both "claim" and "tolerance_pct" have detailed descriptions, with tolerance_pct explaining default behavior and hallucination-detection usage. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with concrete natural-language query forms ("Is it true that…", "fact check"), then states the core function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by being a one-shot claim verifier with an explicit verdict enum, and even notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains internal routing (financial vs. non-financial claims). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'alternatives' bar.

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

All wger 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

Many tools have detailed, differentiated roles, but there are several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language data questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Onboarding/discovery and Polymarket edge tools also blur together, so an agent can easily select the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, with coherent subfamilies like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and list_*. But conventions are mixed across the set: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and adjective-led names (recent_alerts) exist alongside verb_noun names, so there is no consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is already in the 'too many' range, and only four (get_exercise, list_exercises, list_equipment, list_muscles) belong to a wger fitness server. The remaining ~31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/memory utilities, making the count inappropriate for the apparent domain.

Completeness1/5

As a wger fitness server, the surface is a read-only reference slice: exercise, equipment, and muscle lookups, with no workout routine management, user data, or create/update/delete operations for any wger resource. Even ignoring the unrelated Pipeworx tools, the fitness domain has severe gaps that would block most real usage.

Resources