Skip to main content
Glama

Chaos Index

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, destructive false), the description adds critical behavioral context: it explains the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check failed, not evidence), 'unsupported' (no source covers it), the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR vs grounded), and the return format. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases aid selection, usage guidance is explicit, return types and the 'could_not_verify' warning are essential for correct invocation. It is front-loaded with purpose and structured logically, making it easy to scan despite its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the verdict list, citation, reasoning, and the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. It also explains the pipeline and why this tool replaces multiple calls, making it self-contained and complete for the agent.

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%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds a small amount of context about tolerance math and overrides, but the schema already fully describes both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. 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 states the tool verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that...'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on claim verification and notes it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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

All Chaos Index 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

The set contains multiple near-duplicate entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all claim to be the 'call this first' tool. Also, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and the five polymarket_* tools create boundaries an agent could easily mischoose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, validate_claim, unsubscribe, search_within). Minor deviations exist — chaos_index_calculate puts the verb last, entity_profile is noun-only, and the pipeworx_ prefix is applied inconsistently (pipeworx_trending vs ask_pipeworx) — but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is too many for a coherent single-purpose server; the set spans data routing, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. It reads as a bundled suite of unrelated utilities rather than a focused tool surface.

Completeness3/5

Subdomains are individually fairly complete: subscription CRUD, memory CRUD, and the prediction-market workflow (research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking) are all covered. However, the overall domain is incoherent, and gaps exist such as no update-subscription operation and no way to modify an existing memory beyond overwriting via remember.

Resources