Skip to main content
Glama

Espn

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuances: the could_not_verify error semantics (verification_error with stage/detail), the warning that it is not evidence, the distinction from unsupported, and the fallback routing between structured and grounded pipelines. This goes well beyond the annotations and covers failure modes.

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 typical but each sentence carries unique info: trigger phrases, usage, routing, return format, and error caveat. It is front-loaded with common queries and ends with an 'IMPORTANT' warning. Slightly dense but well-organized and not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating possible verdicts, the citation format, and the error payload. It also explains the two pipeline paths and the difference between could_not_verify and unsupported. For a complex tool with conditional behavior, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 already describes both parameters, but the description adds meaning for tolerance_pct: it overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording, is capped at 5 by default, and suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection. This practical guidance is not in the schema and materially improves invocation quality.

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 gives a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('natural-language claim'), and clearly defines its scope with example trigger phrases. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the structured SEC path for financial claims and the grounded pipeline for all other facts, plus stating it replaces 4–6 sequential calls—uniquely positioning it as a claim-verification tool.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains routing rules (company-financial vs anything else) and the difference between could_not_verify and unsupported. It does not name direct alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Espn 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

Several tools cluster around similar purposes—the three ask_pipeworx variants, the five polymarket_* analysis tools, and the meta/discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending)—so an agent could plausibly call the wrong one. However, the descriptions are exceptionally detailed with explicit 'use this when' guidance, which mitigates most confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are almost all snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern: ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, remember, get_scoreboard, polymarket_fill_risk, etc. Pairs like remember/recall/forget and subscribe/unsubscribe are consistent, but the broader set mixes verbs, nouns, and prefixes (ask_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, get_, scan_) without a unified scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and the set spans multiple unrelated domains: sports data, a general structured-data router, prediction-market analysis, memory storage, and user feedback. Many tools are meta or auxiliary (suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, remember/recall/forget) that don't clearly belong to the server's core purpose, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness3/5

For a sports-data server, core score/news/standings/team/schedule operations exist, but player stats, game details, injuries, and playoff brackets are missing. For the broader Pipeworx data platform the surface is extensive, but the mix of domains makes it hard to declare the set complete for any single stated purpose.

Resources