Skip to main content
Glama

Eol

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial semantics: the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, must not be used as evidence) and unsupported (no source found). It also discloses the return structure (verdict, grounded value with citation, reasoning) and the routing behavior, going well beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

While the description is longer than average, it is dense and structured: trigger phrases lead, followed by usage, routing logic, return values, and critical caveats. Each sentence earns its place, especially the IMPORTANT warning about could_not_verify, and the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' line justifies the tool's value without wasting words.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (verdict categories, actual value with citation, reasoning) and handles edge cases like could_not_verify and unsupported. It also explains the fallback routing for any claim type, making it complete for the agent to understand invocation and interpretation without needing an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (claim, tolerance_pct) are well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail; however, it mentions tolerance implicitly through 'exact percent-delta math' and the caveat about could_not_verify, but these are not replacement for schema docs. The baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources') and distinguishes its scope with concrete trigger examples. It also clarifies the two distinct paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and contrasts with the 4-6 sequential calls it replaces, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like search or ask_pipeworx.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further differentiates between company-financial claims (structured path) and all other claims (grounded pipeline), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The guidance is clear and practical, just not exhaustive.

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

All Eol 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that eliminate ambiguity. Even similar tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by use case (casual, high-stakes, multi-faceted). The Polymarket and EOL tool suites are internally distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming mostly follows snake_case with verb_noun or prefix patterns, but there is inconsistency: e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'bet_research' vs 'deep_research'. The Polymarket and memory tool groups are internally consistent, but overall the server mixes conventions across sub-domains.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side, but the server covers multiple domains (EOL taxonomy, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions). The count is borderline excessive for a focused server; meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions help, but the sheer number can overwhelm an agent.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many data sources and analysis tasks well, but the server name 'Eol' implies a biological taxonomy focus, which is underserved (only 4 tools). For the broader implicit purpose of a research assistant, there are notable gaps like open-web search, image analysis, or document management.

Resources