Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Claim Grounding

by io.github.truepointmarketingpartners-dotcom
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Quick check

quick_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fast, low-cost check of ONE factual claim. Returns verdict supported, contradicted or unsure, a confidence score, a short reason and 1-2 public sources (Wikipedia, plus Wikidata structured facts where they apply) with quote and URL. Synchronous. Cheaper and faster than deep_verify; use it on the claims extract_claims returns (its next_step gives the exact body). Unsure or low-confidence results include a next_step to deep_verify. Price: $0.15 USDC on Base per call via x402; this MCP call returns payment instructions and POST /v1/quick_check returns the verdict. Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "claim": "<claim>"
    },
    "name": "quick_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesThe single factual claim to check.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYesTool name.
resultNoPaid result: { mode: 'quick', verdict: supported|contradicted|unsure, verdict_detail, confidence, claim, reason, sources: [{ url, title, quote, source_type }] (max 2), next_step|null, receipt }.
statusYespayment_required: pay the HTTP route with x402 to get the result. ok: result is included.
messageYesHuman-readable summary.
paymentNoPayment instructions. MCP tools/call does not charge or run the paid work; call the HTTP route with x402.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: exact return fields, synchronous execution, source provenance, the x402 $0.15 USDC payment requirement on Base, and the fact that this call returns payment instructions rather than the verdict itself.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and mostly free of waste; the payment and endpoint details are necessary but are packed into a dense tail that slightly crowds the routing guidance.

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 an output schema existing, the description still conveys the verdict vocabulary and the payment handshake, which an agent needs to interpret the response and understand it is not directly returning a verdict. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested claim.text parameter is already fully documented, including length bounds and an example. The description reinforces the key semantic constraint ('ONE factual claim') but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('check of ONE factual claim') and immediately bounds scope, so the agent can distinguish it from deep_verify and verify_claim without opening a schema.

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 when to use it ('use it on the claims extract_claims returns'), names the cheaper/faster alternative relationship versus deep_verify, and routes unsure or low-confidence outcomes to deep_verify via next_step.

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

All Claim Grounding toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources