Skip to main content
Glama

Ebi Ols

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description details behavior that would otherwise be opaque: the verdict taxonomy, the significance of 'could_not_verify' with verification_error, and the distinction between 'unsupported' and 'could_not_verify.' It also notes the pipelining and citation behavior, adding substantial context beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.

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 the average tool, but every section serves a purpose: trigger phrases, usage, path routing, return values, and critical caveats. It is well-organized and front-loaded, though slightly verbose; the 'IMPORTANT for callers' block is essential. A 4 reflects effective structure with a minor redundancy.

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 compensates by explaining the verdict set, evidence/citation behavior, and the meaning of each failure mode. It covers the tool's complexity (fast path vs. fallback) and gives enough guidance for correct invocation, making it complete for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about tolerance_pct: how it overrides the wording-implied tolerance, default capping at 5, and suggested use (1–2 for hallucination detection). This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool, listing trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the SEC EDGAR fast path for company financials and the grounded pipeline fallback for all other claims, making its unique value explicit.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further guides on internal routing (company-financial vs. other claims) and mentions it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making the choice over manual alternatives clear.

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

All Ebi Ols 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially among Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded), betting research tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread), and memory tools (remember, recall, forget). An agent could easily select the wrong tool. Additionally, tools like 'discover_tools', 'search', and 'search_within' have unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case (e.g., 'entity_profile', 'validate_claim'), but there are inconsistencies with single-word verbs like 'forget', 'recall', 'remember', 'subscribe', 'unsubscribe', and the mixed pattern of 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'pipeworx_feedback'. Overall, the naming is somewhat consistent but not fully predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server has a high but not extreme count. However, the tools span multiple unrelated domains (ontologies, financial data, betting, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), making the server feel like a collection of disparate features rather than a focused toolset. This reduces the appropriateness of the count for a single server.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has significant gaps. For example, ontology tools lack create/update/delete operations; betting tools only provide research and analysis but no placement; memory tools allow save/recall/delete but not update; and there is no tool for user authentication or account management despite subscription features. The server covers many areas but none completely.

Resources