Skip to main content
Glama

Artsmia

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?

The description richly discloses behavioral nuances beyond the annotations: the meaning of each verdict, the critical distinction that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and is not evidence, the unsupported meaning, and the fact that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. This adds significant context about error semantics and fallback behavior that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 every clause serves a purpose: trigger phrases, usage guidance, routing, return value semantics, and caller-important caveats. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most actionable phrase, but the density and length prevent a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: a verdict, grounded or structured actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also covers error handling (verification_error) and edge cases (unsupported), making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to understand inputs, outputs, and failure modes.

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 schema has 100% coverage of both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with descriptive examples and constraints. The description adds contextual value by showing example claims and explaining the financial fast path with exact percent-delta math, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on tolerance_pct beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases like "fact check" and "verify the claim that." It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by focusing on confirming/refuting factual claims and explicitly notes it replaces multi-step sequential calls, making its unique role clear.

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 states when to use the tool: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also explains routing logic (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for other claims), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings, 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 Artsmia 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market analysis with fuzzy boundaries. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap as well. While some tools are clearly distinct (art search vs memory), the set as a whole requires careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow multiple patterns: verb_noun (search_artworks, resolve_entity, validate_claim), domain_prefixed (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and product-style names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research). Versioned suffixes like ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded break any unified convention. Even though subgroups are internally consistent, the overall pattern is mixed and unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the high side, especially for a server named after an art museum. Only 3 tools actually relate to the Minneapolis Institute of Art, while the rest are a general-purpose data platform, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscription features. Many of these extra tools are redundant or power-user variations, making the count feel inflated relative to the apparent domain.

Completeness3/5

For the stated art domain, the read-only surface (search, get, department highlights) is functional but thin — no artist browse, exhibitions, or advanced filtering. The broader data tools are comprehensive in themselves, but their presence distracts from the core domain and creates confusion about the server's intended purpose. The art coverage is adequate for basic queries but lacks depth expected from a dedicated museum collection API.

Resources