Skip to main content
Glama

zippopotam

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 convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral depth: the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR structured vs grounded fallback), the full verdict enum, and the crucial caution that 'could_not_verify' is NOT evidence, carrying verification_error and must not be shown as supporting/refuting. This is exactly the kind of context annotations do not provide and no contradiction exists.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: scannable trigger phrases, a clear one-sentence definition, concise routing explanation, verbatim return payload summary, and a highlighted IMPORTANT caveat for error semantics. The structure is front-loaded and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' box draws attention to the critical edge case without 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all possible verdict values, mentions the grounded actual value with citation, explains the meaning of 'could_not_verify' versus 'unsupported', and describes the integration benefit of replacing sequential calls. Given the tool's complexity, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 goes far beyond the schema by explaining tolerance_pct semantics: 'Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection' and 'Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.' This transforms a bare numeric parameter into actionable guidance for different use cases.

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 natural-language trigger phrases then states the verb+resource explicitly: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by defining a fact-check verdict output and the structured financial path for SEC EDGAR/XBRL.

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 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' gives a clear when-to-use. It also explains the two routing paths (financial vs other) and notes it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' to imply efficiency over alternatives, though it does not name specific sibling tools as exclusions.

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

All zippopotam 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all route questions to the same underlying engine, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket_* family also has many closely-related entry points, though descriptions do help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use snake_case with descriptive verb-first patterns (ask_, lookup_, scan_, validate_, resolve_, subscribe) and a clear polymarket_ family prefix. Minor inconsistency exists between lookup_city/lookup_zipcode and resolve_entity, and between noun-style names like entity_profile vs verb-style names like compare_entities, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single server, and multiple could be consolidated: the ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research largely overlap, and the memory/subscription categories could be collapsed. For a data-platform gateway the breadth is arguably justified, but the visible redundancy makes the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The core domains are well covered: question answering has multiple modes, entity lookup has resolution and profiling, prediction markets have research/edge/arb/fill-risk coverage, and the memory (remember/recall/forget) and subscription (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) lifecycles are complete. Minor gaps exist such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI, relying instead on MCP resources.

Resources