Skip to main content
Glama

Dostuff

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) by detailing the internal routing, the verdict taxonomy, and the meaning of special outcomes like could_not_verify (with verification_error) and unsupported. It also discloses the return format (verdict, evidence, citation, reasoning). This is high-value context that annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases, then logically progresses to purpose, routing, outputs, and caveats. Every sentence contributes unique information—there is no fluff or redundancy. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, and the structure makes it easy to scan for key facts.

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 fully explains the return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and defines ambiguous outcomes. It also covers error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and the two execution paths. Given the complexity, this is a thoroughly complete description.

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?

Although the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: tolerance_pct's role in overriding implied tolerance and its recommended setting for hallucination detection (1-2). The claim parameter is enriched with example inputs. This meaningfully enhances the agent's ability to use the parameters correctly.

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 function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It uses explicit trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…', and distinguishes itself by mapping to a specific verb+resource. It also explains the two-path routing (SEC EDGAR for financial claims vs grounded pipeline for all others), which differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies when not to show results (could_not_verify) and explains the fallback behavior for non-financial claims. Though it doesn't name alternative tools, the scope and conditions are clearly delineated, making the appropriate usage unambiguous.

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

All Dostuff 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

The set contains near-duplicate tools (ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') and a dense family of six polymarket_* tools whose boundaries are subtle, plus overlapping onboarding tools in discover_tools and suggest_questions. Detailed descriptions mitigate some confusion, but several tools are difficult to tell apart without reading their full text.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with consistent prefix families (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the overall structure is mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), adjective+noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and noun+noun domain tags (polymarket_edges, entity_profile) rather than a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy, carrying an experimental duplicate of ask_pipeworx and a six-tool polymarket family that could plausibly be consolidated. The breadth reflects several unrelated domains bundled into one server rather than a focused scope.

Completeness3/5

The data-research core (ask, grounded, deep_research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, entity resolution) and the prediction-market analysis suite are thoroughly covered, and memory plus subscription lifecycles are complete. However, the events domain the server is named for is thin (only events + metros), and the overall set lacks a single coherent purpose against which completeness can be cleanly judged.

Resources