Skip to main content
Glama

Biosamples

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses crucial behavioral details: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence for/against), the distinction between 'unsupported' and other verdicts, and the two verification paths with verbatim evidence. It also mentions the structured vs. grounded pipeline behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with example queries, then explains the verification paths, return values, and important edge cases. Although lengthy, every sentence adds unique value—there is no fluff. It is well-structured for a complex tool, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the returned verdicts, the reasoning/evidence, and the critical error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also covers the two data paths and the callers' obligations, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly without needing additional context.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct', including examples and default behavior. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states (e.g., tolerance_pct usage is fully described in the schema). Baseline 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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool, providing example queries and explicitly stating its function: 'check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces a multi-step pipeline (NL parsing, entity resolution, data lookup, comparison) and details the two verification paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all others).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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 clarifies the fall-through behavior for any factual claim and contrasts it with the alternative of making multiple sequential calls. This gives the agent clear guidance on selection.

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

All Biosamples 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

Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants (beta currently identical), and the set includes five-plus prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) with fuzzy boundaries. Long descriptions help, but an agent selecting among them would frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_first names (search_samples, validate_claim, resolve_entity) mix with noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage) and bare imperatives (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). It is readable, but there is no predictable verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the coherent range, and the count is especially inflated because the server is named Biosamples yet only two tools (search_samples, get_sample) actually belong to that domain. The remaining 31 tools are an unrelated mix of Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities, including redundant variants.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Biosamples purpose, only search and retrieve exist—no submission, update, or batch operations—so the domain surface is a read-only fragment. For the broader accidental scope of the other tools, the set is a grab bag with no coherent lifecycle, leaving significant gaps regardless of which domain is considered primary.

Resources