Skip to main content
Glama

Data Dc

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it details the different verdicts, the meaning of could_not_verify versus unsupported, and the presence of verification_error{stage,detail}. It warns that could_not_verify is not evidence for or against the claim—this is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but every sentence carries weight: examples, routing, return value, and critical error semantics are all present. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose and then builds outward logically. It could be slightly more compact, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity, a 2-param schema with high coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key mental model: claim types, routing, verdicts, citations, and error semantics. It does not explicitly document all possible edge cases (e.g., what happens with ambiguous claims) but is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains claim with examples and tolerance_pct with its override semantics. The description reinforces that exact percent-delta math is used and mentions the tolerance context, but it does not add much meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It neither improves nor hurts the agent's understanding of the parameters.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming exact intents ('fact check', 'verify the claim') and by the unique verdict vocabulary (confirmed, refuted, etc.). The description makes it immediately clear what this tool does that ask_pipeworx_grounded or other search tools do not.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the internal routing (financial via EDGAR/XBRL, other via grounded pipeline) and positions it as a replacement for 4–6 sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for non-factual questions), so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Data Dc 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) share similar edge-detection and arbitrage goals, creating potential confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). There are minor deviations like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence, but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is on the heavier side but still justified given its broad scope (data querying, entity profiles, monitoring, research, etc.). The count feels slightly high, but each tool serves a specific purpose; however, some consolidation could reduce redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of tasks: data lookup, entity profiling, comparison, monitoring, memory, research, and claim verification. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of explicit data source listing or user preference management, but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources