Skip to main content
Glama

Tiingo

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses far beyond annotations: explains the two source-routing paths, the verdict taxonomy, and the crucial semantic distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source exists). The warning that could_not_verify 'must not be shown as evidence' is a valuable behavioral guardrail that annotations do not cover. No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by technical routing details and a critical warning. It is long (~200 words) but each sentence contributes meaningful information, including example phrases and the could_not_verify caveat. Could be trimmed slightly (e.g., 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls'), but overall well-structured for the complexity.

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 fully covers return values: verdict list, actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also explains error/edge states (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and the routing logic. For a tool of this complexity (two paths, multiple verdicts), the description 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters with examples and defaults (claim, tolerance_pct). The description adds contextual detail like 'exact percent-delta math' for financial claims, but this does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is 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?

The description is explicit: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with concrete example phrases. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by returning a verdict and replacing 4–6 sequential calls, positioning it as a specialized fact-checking tool rather than a generic Q&A. The verb 'validate' and resource 'claim' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also describes two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial, grounded pipeline for everything else), which implies broad applicability. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions, though the 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls' phrasing suggests it is the preferred one-stop fact-check tool.

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

All Tiingo 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ only in mode; several Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) target related opportunities; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. The meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) could also be confused for one another.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, which is consistent, but patterns vary: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), others are noun (news, crypto_prices, stock_metadata), and several use brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a coherent, well-scoped server. The set bundles a financial data API (Tiingo) with a generic data router (ask_pipeworx), prediction-market tools, memory utilities, subscription management, and npm checks — many unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making it feel bloated.

Completeness2/5

For a Tiingo server, core data coverage is limited to stock prices, stock metadata, crypto prices, and news — missing real-time quotes, fundamentals, forex, technical indicators, and other typical Tiingo endpoints. Conversely, the general Pipeworx platform has broad query/research/subscription coverage but that domain doesn't align with the server name, leaving significant functional gaps.

Resources