Skip to main content
Glama

econdata

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. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds context beyond these: the verdict enumeration, the grounded/structured pipeline distinction, the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source found), and the presence of verification_error with stage/detail. This helps the agent correctly handle not-yet-verified claims without falsely treating them as evidence.

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?

Although the description is long, it is front-loaded with usage examples and flows logically: purpose, routing, return value, caveats, and added value. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—no filler or 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It specifies the possible verdicts, the actual value with citation, reasoning, and error semantics. It covers both company-financial and general factual claims. This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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% for both parameters. The description adds valuable nuances: it gives concrete examples for claim, and for tolerance_pct it explains that the default is implied by wording (capped at 5), and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. This enriches the schema's raw type/description with practical usage guidance.

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 claim-verification service with specific verbs like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims and the grounded pipeline for other factual claims, and it explicitly states it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 provides examples of natural-language triggers and describes the routing logic for different claim types. It also clarifies how to interpret edge-case verdicts like could_not_verify vs unsupported, which helps avoid misuse.

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

All econdata 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions. Some overlap exists, especially among research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and prediction market tools, but boundaries are clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_cpi, list_subscriptions). A few deviations exist (e.g., forget, recall, pipeworx_feedback using a prefix), but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. While it covers many domains, the high number makes the set feel heavy and harder to navigate, warranting a score of 2 according to calibration.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is comprehensive for its broad scope, covering economic data, company research, prediction markets, and utilities. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing explicit GDP or stock quote tools), but the powerful ask_pipeworx meta-tool fills many gaps.

Resources