Skip to main content
Glama

Timestamp

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?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description explains critical failure semantics: 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be used as evidence, while 'unsupported' means no source exists. It also discloses the automatic fallback pipeline and the returned verdict/citation/reasoning structure.

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 fairly long (~180 words) but information-dense. The opening list of example phrasings could be trimmed, yet the crucial caller guidance about 'could_not_verify' and the pipeline routing justifies the length. It is front-loaded with the purpose and examples.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the verdict options and explaining ambiguous results. It also describes the two data paths and the replacement of multiple sequential calls, giving the agent a full picture of the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail; it only mentions 'natural-language claim' which mirrors the schema. Thus a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('natural-language claim'), and includes multiple usage examples like 'fact check' and 'confirm or refute'. It also differentiates the tool by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, distinguishing it from simpler query tools.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also describes the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for other claims), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid.

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

All Timestamp 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

Many tools occupy heavily overlapping territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, validate_claim, and even entity_profile/compare_entities all route questions to similar underlying data and could easily be misselected. The Polymarket suite adds another cluster of near-synonymous tools. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to keep straight.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix imperative verbs (remember, subscribe, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun-phrase descriptors (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and time-utility names (now, from_timestamp, to_timestamp, relative_time). All-lowercase snake_case is consistent, but there is no unified verb_noun or domain-prefix pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable 3-15 range, and most of them are unrelated to the server name 'Timestamp,' which adds confusion. The broad Pipeworx data scope justifies more than a tiny utility server, but the count still feels overstuffed and will burden tool selection.

Completeness3/5

For the broad data-research and prediction-market domain the set actually covers, the lifecycle is fairly complete: query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscription management, and memory storage all have working operations. However, the surface is sprawling and includes one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency that do not fit any coherent domain, making completeness hard to assess and leaving a fuzzy, fragmented impression.

Resources