Skip to main content
Glama

Data Issy

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the internal routing logic (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), return verdicts, citation format, and crucially distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (no evidence either way) from 'unsupported' (no source coverage). This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 lengthy but well-structured: example triggers first, then usage guidance, then behavioral details, then critical caveats. Every sentence adds value, though it could be condensed without loss; it is front-loaded with the most actionable information.

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 compensates by explaining the full range of verdicts, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported', and the citation mechanism. It fully equips an agent to interpret results correctly in all edge cases.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (claim example, tolerance_pct range, override behavior, default). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 opens with natural-language query examples and explicitly states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly identifies the tool's function as verifying factual claims, distinct from siblings by positioning it as a replacement for multi-step pipelines.

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?

It provides an explicit 'Use whenever' condition for fact-checking and distinguishes behavior for company-financial versus other claims. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, falling short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

All Data Issy 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
Disambiguation3/5

The toolset is mostly organized by clear subdomains, but there are multiple overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer research questions and the beta version is currently identical to the stable router. Detailed descriptions reduce confusion, but an agent could still reasonably pick the wrong one for a given task. The entity, memory, and subscription tools are more clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lower_snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-led names (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-led names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and some odd pairings like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. No chaotic camelCase or inconsistent separators, but the convention is not uniform enough for a strong score.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is past the 25+ threshold and the surface spans many unrelated domains: structured data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility marketing, city open data, npm dependency checking, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool may be individually useful, but the collection feels like a platform dump rather than a tightly scoped server. A more focused server would split off prediction markets, AI visibility, and utility tools.

Completeness4/5

The main data-research workflow is well covered: discovery, routing, grounded answering, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, and search-within-results are all present. Prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscription lifecycles also have no major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no write/update path for open data and no subscription option for AI-visibility monitoring, but these are not central to the apparent core purpose.

Resources