Skip to main content
Glama

Yesterdays Number

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: the verdict values, distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source), the verification_error payload, and the two routing paths. It adds value beyond annotations with no contradictions.

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 dense but well-structured, opening with trigger phrases, then purpose, then behavior, then important caller warnings. Every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the tool's complexity. The 'IMPORTANT' section is clearly front-loaded for the critical misuse case.

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 fully covers return values (verdict values, actual value with citation, reasoning) and explains error semantics. It also explains the two processing paths and when each applies. For a complex tool, this is complete enough for an agent to use it 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?

Input schema covers both parameters 100% with descriptions and examples. The description adds extra nuance for tolerance_pct: 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted' and notes the default is capped at 5. This exceeds the baseline for fully-covered schema.

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 does natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases and two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the dedicated fact-checking tool and explicitly says 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies handling for financial vs. other claims, and gives a crucial caller instruction about interpreting could_not_verify as not evidence. This is clear when-to-use guidance.

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

All Yesterdays Number 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). While descriptions help differentiate, the clustering of similar functions may cause confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: some start with verbs (forget, remember, recall) while others start with nouns (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending). The naming is generally clear with minor inconsistencies.

Tool Count4/5

With 31 tools, the set is slightly large but appropriate given the broad scope covering company data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more. A few tools like yesterdays_number_get seem out of place, but overall the count is reasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains comprehensively (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets), but there are notable gaps such as no direct web search or stock price tool beyond routed queries. The server feels like a collection of capabilities rather than a unified domain.

Resources