Skip to main content
Glama

Bundlephobia

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses key behaviors: the special meaning of 'could_not_verify' (not evidence, includes verification_error), the difference between that and 'unsupported', and the automatic routing logic. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides essential context for interpreting results.

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 dense. Every section earns its place: trigger phrases, routing logic, return values, and the critical caveat about 'could_not_verify'. The 'IMPORTANT for callers' call-out improves scannability. Slightly verbose but justified given 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 having no output schema, the description fully details the returned verdict set, the error field, and the difference between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. It covers both routing paths and the replacement claim. This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for 'tolerance_pct' (overrides implied tolerance, default behavior, recommended values for hallucination detection), which is valuable beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its two verification paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else) and its single-call replacement of a multi-step workflow.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which is clear when-touse guidance. It also explains the two routing paths, but doesn't explicitly list 'when not to use' or recommend alternative tools for edge cases (e.g., non-factual queries).

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

All Bundlephobia 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among tools in the Pipeworx group: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language queries to the same 5,578 tools and sources, with only subtle differences in mode (beta vs stable, grounded vs standard, single vs multi-part). Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk are heavily intertwined, making differentiation difficult. Tools like similar, size, history, and scan_dependency from the bundlephobia side are distinct, but the Pipeworx family muddies the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

The bundlephobia tools follow a consistent noun pattern (size, similar, history), and the Pipeworx meta-tools use snake_case verbs (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). However, the naming is inconsistent across the two families—bundlephobia's simple nouns (size, similar, history) clash with the verbose descriptive verbs—and naming like ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, and generate_llms_txt break from the Pipeworx pattern. The set mixes short names, camelCase-ish compounds, and snake_case, so no single consistent convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server that ostensibly serves two domains (bundle-size analysis and Pipeworx data research). The bundle-size analysis needs only a handful (size, history, similar, recent_searches, scan_dependency), yet there are over 30 tools dominated by a sprawling meta-research layer including multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools, plus meta-cognitive tools (remember, recall, forget, discover_tools) that are not core to either domain. This bloats the surface and makes call routing difficult.

Completeness4/5

Each functional domain is fairly complete: bundlephobia covers size measurement, history, alternatives, search, and dependency vetting; the Pipeworx side covers lookup, research, entity resolution, comparison, verification, subscriptions, and feedback. However, there are gaps—e.g., no tool for directly reading an npm package's README or license beyond scan_dependency's summary, and no explicit tools for some administrative actions like account management or subscription editing beyond create/cancel/list. The completeness is strong for what's advertised but not exhaustive.

Resources