Skip to main content
Glama

Ens

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?

With readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true already set, the description goes far beyond annotations by explaining the verdict types (confirmed, refuted, etc.), the critical distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source found), and the warning that could_not_verify must not be shown as evidence. It also describes the data routing and evidence citation, adding substantial behavioral context consistent with 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with examples and purpose, then methodically covers routing, return values, and failure semantics. Every sentence earns its place, but the trigger-phrase list is somewhat verbose and could be trimmed without losing meaning. Overall, it is well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is a complex tool with no output schema, yet the description fully prepares the agent: it specifies the verdict set, the grounded/structured actual value with citation, the meaning of could_not_verify and unsupported, the data-source fast path, and the efficiency benefit. There are no significant gaps in what an agent needs to know to invoke the tool and interpret its response.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable guidance on tolerance_pct: explains how it overrides claim wording, gives a concrete use case (1–2 for hallucination detection), and states the default capped at 5. It also provides realistic claim examples for the required claim parameter, enriching meaning well beyond the schema's dry field descriptions.

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 natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, using specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that'. It distinguishes itself from general Q&A tools by focusing on factual correctness and mentions the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline), making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the routing logic for company-financial vs other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks the 'when-not/alternatives' specificity needed for a 5.

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

All Ens 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 defined, distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by use case (casual vs. high-stakes), and the prediction market tools each cover a specific function (research, edge detection, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, cross-venue spreads). Detailed descriptions eliminate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but a few use noun_noun or adjective_noun forms (e.g., entity_profile, recent_alerts). The naming is generally predictable and readable, with minor deviations from a strict pattern.

Tool Count3/5

The server offers 32 tools, which is above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. However, the vast domain (financials, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions, etc.) justifies the count. It is on the heavy side but still manageable with clear organization.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for the apparent domain: exploration (discover_tools, suggest_questions), identifier resolution (resolve_entity), data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim), prediction market analysis (full suite), memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), and extras (ENS, dependency scan, AI visibility). No obvious gaps exist.

Resources