Skip to main content
Glama

Always Seven

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. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already providing readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the two-pipeline routing (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs grounded), the verdict set, citation format, and a critical warning that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be interpreted as evidence. This goes well beyond the annotations' safety 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 long but information-dense; every sentence contributes: examples, routing logic, return value details, and the crucial error semantic. It could be better structured with bullet points for the verdict list, but the flow is logical and no part feels redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the response shape, and it does: verdict values, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, reasoning, and error fields. It also covers the unsupported vs could_not_verify distinction. Minor gaps like the exact structure of verification_error are not critical for basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema covers 100% of the 2 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description enriches this with a concrete example for claim and explains tolerance_pct's default behavior and its purpose for hallucination detection, adding value beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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' and enumerates common phrasings ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like deep_research by framing it as a direct true/false verification of user statements, and mentions it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, reinforcing its unique role.

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 gives a clear trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing for company-financial vs. other claims, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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

All Always Seven 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also has fuzzy boundaries — both bet_research and polymarket_edges claim 'should I bet on X', and discover_tools versus suggest_questions both serve discovery. Despite very detailed descriptions, an agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly snake_case and readable, with coherent micro-families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx variants, remember/recall/forget). However, patterns are mixed: verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt) sits alongside noun-led names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and entity-related tools use three different conventions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, entity_profile). It's consistent within families but not across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well past the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set, and the scope is a scattered grab bag: a joke RNG, an AI-visibility probe, a 5,708-tool data router, prediction-market arb analytics, key-value memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and a feedback channel. Some of these are arguably platform additions rather than core tools, but as presented the count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The major workflow areas are well covered — data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, profiles, and change feeds; memory and subscriptions each have full lifecycle coverage. However, the server repeatedly references pipeworx:// citation URIs as fetchable yet provides no record-fetching tool, and the diffuse purpose makes it hard to assess what 'complete' even means. Notable gaps exist around citation resolution and execution of the arbitrage signals the Polymarket tools generate.

Resources