Skip to main content
Glama

Bart

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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 discloses critical behavioral details: the dual routing path (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline), the full list of possible verdicts, and explicit semantics for 'could_not_verify' (not evidence, carries verification_error). This is valuable transparency that prevents misuse.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and usage triggers. While the list of six trigger phrases is slightly repetitive, every subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining routing, return values, and error semantics.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the key return elements (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error conditions. It could be more explicit about the 'pipeworx://' citation format and the exact structure of 'verification_error,' but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 already covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little direct parameter guidance. It provides example claims and mentions 'percent-delta math' but doesn't explain the tolerance_pct parameter specifically, which is already well-defined in the schema.

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 immediately identifies the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with explicit trigger phrases. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on verifying the truth of a single claim, including a specialized financial fast path and a grounded pipeline for other claims.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear context. It also explains the routing for financial vs. non-financial claims, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

All Bart 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) overlap significantly in functionality, as do the Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.), which could cause an agent to misselect without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows multiple styles: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), domain first (polymarket_arbitrage, bart_departures), and single words (remember, forget). There is no consistent pattern, making the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the heavy side for a single server. While each tool has a defined role, the count suggests potential for consolidation (e.g., merging ask_pipeworx variants or Polymarket tools). The server's broad scope partially justifies the count.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of functionalities: structured querying, entity lookup, comparison, fact-checking, subscription management, memory, and domain-specific tools for BART and Polymarket. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for some data sources), but overall it feels comprehensive.

Resources