Skip to main content
Glama

Currents

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context: verdict types, the meaning of could_not_verify vs unsupported, the error structure with stage/detail, the dual pipeline routing, and the citation return. This goes well beyond the annotations and clearly explains edge-case behaviors.

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 fairly long but well-structured, front-loading with trigger phrases and core purpose before diving into pipeline details and verdict semantics. All sentences carry useful information, though some could be tightened (e.g., the final 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' is an efficiency note that might be implied). Overall, it's appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdicts, grounding citation, reasoning), error semantics (could_not_verify with verification_error), and the distinction between unsupported and could_not_verify. It covers both the financial fast path and general grounded pipeline, making the description complete for an agent to understand behavior without needing an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description further enriches meaning by providing concrete claim examples, explaining how tolerance_pct overrides implied wording, defaulting to 5, and providing use-case guidance (1–2 for hallucination detection). This adds value 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 and examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking and explains the two pipelines (SEC/XBRL for company financials, grounded for everything else). This is a specific verb+resource description with clear scope.

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 to use it 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides example query forms. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for non-fact-checking research, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Currents 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters are hard to tell apart: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (beta currently behaves exactly like stable), and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all overlap around edge and arbitrage discovery. The descriptions are detailed and help, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselecting a sibling tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is mixed: verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, list_categories, resolve_entity) coexist with noun-first names (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Readable overall, but the pattern is not systematic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and spans at least six loosely related domains (news, structured data research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), making the server feel like a multi-product grab bag. Meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending add further navigation overhead.

Completeness4/5

Within each bundled domain the lifecycle is well covered: data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, and claim validation; Polymarket has research, arbitrage, edge, fill-risk, and cross-venue spread tools; memory and subscriptions each have full CRUD-ish flows. Minor gaps like subscription updating or direct article-by-ID fetching are workarounds rather than dead ends.

Resources