Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentIndex x402

by world.agentindex
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Fact Check

fact_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fact-check verdict written by Claude Haiku 5.5 (Anthropic) from real web sources: supported/contradicted/mixed/unverifiable, each source with its stance (supports/contradicts/neutral). Answer in a few seconds. Try GET /fact-check/sample. Independently monitored: lumierepaycheck.org/e?url=https://x402.agentindex.world/fact-check

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesThe factual claim to check against live web sources.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes
sourcesYes
verdictYes'inconclusive' is returned instead of a guess whenever confidence is low or no source clearly supports/contradicts the claim - never a confident-sounding verdict the sources don't actually back up.
confidenceYes0.0-1.0 confidence in the verdict.
x402_receiptNoBilling and provenance receipt for this call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim / description
      Added value: +"The factual claim to check against live web sources."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "claim": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "confidence": {
+      "description": "0.0-1.0 confidence in the verdict.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sources": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "stance": {
+            "enum": [
+              "supports",
+              "contradicts",
+              "neutral"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Source page title, when known."
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "description": "'inconclusive' is returned instead of a guess whenever confidence is low or no source clearly supports/contradicts the claim - never a confident-sounding verdict the sources don't actually back up.",
+      "enum": [
+        "supported",
+        "contradicted",
+        "mixed",
+        "unverifiable",
+        "inconclusive"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "x402_receipt": {
+      "description": "Billing and provenance receipt for this call.",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "claim",
+    "verdict",
+    "confidence",
+    "sources"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so those traits are covered structurally. The description adds model identity (Claude Haiku 5.5), source provenance, latency ('a few seconds'), and an independent monitoring URL — useful context — but omits error handling, rate limits, and source-count limits.

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?

Mostly front-loaded with the verdict taxonomy first, then latency and sample/monitoring details. The monitoring URL and sample endpoint are slightly incidental but short and not disruptive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies model, source type, latency, and taxonomy, which is sufficient for a single-claim checker; minor gaps are error behavior and source-count bounds.

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?

Only one parameter ('claim') and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or constraints (max length, URL handling, language) beyond the schema, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb (fact-check) and names the exact output taxonomy (supported/contradicted/mixed/unverifiable) plus per-source stance, and identifies the model and source type. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like search, research, or verify.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage (check a factual claim against live web sources) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as search, research, or verify. The sample endpoint hint and monitoring note are operational, not selection guidance.

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

All AgentIndex x402 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