Skip to main content
Glama

Data Ua

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the meaning of each verdict, especially the critical distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, carries verification_error) and unsupported (no source). It also discloses the fallback routing and citation format, which are not present in 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 long but every sentence carries meaningful content. It is front-loaded with examples and ends with an important caller warning. Slightly verbose, but the complexity of the tool (routing, verdict semantics, error handling) justifies the 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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape (verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning), explains error semantics, and differentiates the two failure modes. For an agent needing to invoke and interpret results, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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% — both `claim` and `tolerance_pct` already have detailed descriptions including examples and allowed ranges. The tool description does not add further parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does give context for how the claim gets judged, but that is more about behavior than parameter semantics.

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 clear examples of natural-language claim verification and a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from generic Q&A tools by naming the pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded fallthrough) and the exact verdict set, making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also gives routing guidance (company-financial claims vs any other factual claim) and notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, effectively telling the agent to prefer this single call over chaining other tools.

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

All Data Ua 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) are very similar, potentially causing confusion. The Polymarket and memory tool families are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, with a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, search_datasets, subscribe). No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

34 tools is high but justified given the breadth of the Pipeworx platform and Ukraine Open Data integration. The set covers a wide range of data sources and operations without feeling bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is thorough, covering querying, comparison, profiling, subscriptions, and memory. Minor redundancy in ask_pipeworx variants, but no significant gaps for the stated data-access purpose.

Resources