Skip to main content
Glama

Diff

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond these by disclosing the automatic fallthrough between pipelines, the special semantics of could_not_verify (failure, not evidence) and unsupported (no source found), the verdict scale, and the inclusion of verification_error with stage/detail. This is rich behavioral context that is essential for correct caller interpretation, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 and information-rich, organized logically: trigger phrases, usage directive, pipeline explanation, return format, and critical caller warnings. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the purpose. Despite its length, there is no redundant filler; the complexity of the tool justifies the detail.

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?

This tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values fully. It does: it enumerates the verdict enum, mentions the grounded/structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and includes reasoning. It also clarifies the error state (could_not_verify) and the 'unsupported' state. For a tool with two routing paths and six verdicts, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance for tolerance_pct — 'Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection' and explains the default 'implied by wording, capped at 5' — which enriches the schema description. This additional context lifts the score.

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 trigger phrases and clearly states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else) and explicitly states it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making it the purpose-built choice for claim verification.

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 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear context. It also implies a preferred alternative to sequential calls by noting it 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded or state when this tool should NOT be used, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

All Diff 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools are hard to tell apart: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping query paths, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research cover heavily overlapping prediction-market analysis. Some pairs are nearly identical in purpose, like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the descriptions must be read closely to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the naming style is highly inconsistent across the set: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts), and some use a vendor prefix without a clear verb (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker). The pattern shifts between domain-specific prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and generic verbs with no predictable rule.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is too many for a cohesive server, especially when the surface sprawls across unrelated domains: data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, AI visibility checks, and llms.txt generation. Many tools could be consolidated (the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket family, the entity-comparison family), which would make the count feel more justified.

Completeness4/5

Within its apparent purpose as a broad data-and-research assistant, the tool set is fairly complete: it covers entity resolution, lookup, grounded verification, deep research, comparisons, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, discovery, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a record by its pipeworx:// citation URI (search_within implies fetching happens elsewhere) and no evident update operation for stored memories beyond save/delete.

Resources