Skip to main content
Glama

Edgar

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and is not evidence for/against, unsupported means no source covers it, and the existence of a verification_error object with stage/detail. It also reveals the two execution paths and that evidence is quoted verbatim.

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 average but every sentence carries useful information: trigger phrases, routing rules, return structure, and important caller warnings. It is well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing behavior, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: exact verdicts returned, evidence citation, reasoning, failure modes (could_not_verify vs unsupported), and both processing pipelines. It gives enough detail for an agent to understand what will happen and how to interpret results, making it complete despite the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining tolerance_pct's practical effect: it overrides the tolerance implied by claim wording, and recommends 1–2% for hallucination detection. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 defines the tool as fact-checking natural-language claims, with specific verbs like 'verify' and 'validate' and a specified resource ('factual claim'). It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by listing trigger phrases ('Is it true that…') and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential lookup calls, making its niche obvious.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and provides concrete natural-language trigger examples. It also gives routing guidance: company-financial claims go through SEC EDGAR/XBRL, while other claims fall through to the grounded pipeline, which effectively communicates when to choose this over alternatives.

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

All Edgar 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. Overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded are explicitly differentiated by use case (casual vs high-stakes) and refusal behavior.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are mostly consistent using lowercase underscores, but there is a mix of verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt) and noun-initial (edgar_company_facts, polymarket_arbitrage) patterns, which slightly reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

37 tools is high, but the server covers a broad domain of authoritative data sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, etc.). While it exceeds the typical 15-tool threshold, each tool serves a distinct data need and the count feels justified for the scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data retrieval and analysis: discovery (discover_tools), single queries (ask_pipeworx), grounded lookups (ask_pipeworx_grounded), multi-source research (deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, historical data, and subscription monitoring. No major gaps are evident.

Resources