Skip to main content
Glama

Arbeitnow

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the meaning of each verdict, the special non-evidentiary status of 'could_not_verify', the definition of 'unsupported', the fallback routing between structured and grounded pipelines, and the performance benefit of replacing multiple calls. This is substantial additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with natural-language triggers. Every sentence adds value: usage scenarios, path routing, return values, error semantics, and efficiency gains. No fluff or redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's 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 explains return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error behavior (verification_error, could_not_verify vs unsupported). It covers the main use cases and edge cases, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (claim examples, tolerance_pct range/default/use cases). The description adds only marginal extra meaning (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math'), so it does not significantly surpass the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb ('verify') and resource ('claim'). It differentiates from siblings by scoping to claim verification and explicitly stating it replaces multi-step sequential calls, making its role distinct from research or search 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and distinguishes between company-financial claims (structured path) and other claims (grounded pipeline). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Arbeitnow 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from job searching to company research to bet analysis. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by one being hallucination-resistant. Memory and subscription tools are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_jobs, validate_claim, subscribe). However, some tools like pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile deviate with noun_noun or proper noun patterns, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a wide breadth of domains (jobs, company data, betting, memory, monitoring) so each tool earns its place. Slightly over-scoped but reasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For jobs, only search/list/get exist (no create/update/delete). For company data, update is missing. For betting, there is analysis but no placement. The set is broad but not deeply complete for any single domain.

Resources