Skip to main content
Glama

Estat Japan

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral semantics: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, carries verification_error) and 'unsupported' (no source covers it), and the important caller warning that 'could_not_verify' must not be treated as evidence. It also explains the automatic routing between structured SEC/XBRL and grounded pipelines, adding significant value beyond 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 detailed and logically structured, front-loaded with purpose and then covering usage, behavior, returns, and caveats. The list of trigger phrases is useful recognition cues, and the important warning about 'could_not_verify' is necessary. It is somewhat long but every sentence serves a purpose for a complex tool; a minor point is that the trigger-phrase enumeration could be trimmed, so not a perfect 5.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description takes full responsibility for explaining return values (verdict list, citation, reasoning) and failure semantics. It also describes the routing logic and the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' benefit. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what the tool does, what it returns, and how to interpret its results, including edge cases.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing 'claim' with examples and 'tolerance_pct' with range, default, and purpose. The tool description adds only a brief mention of 'exact percent-delta math' and the default cap, which is already in the schema. Since the schema fully documents both parameters, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…', 'true or false'). It specifies the resource (authoritative sources) and the action (verify/judge), making the tool's role distinct from general Q&A or research 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,' giving a clear use case. It also explains the two-path behavior (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all others) and notes it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls,' which implies an efficiency advantage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Estat Japan 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx variants and Polymarket tools, but detailed descriptions help differentiate. Some tools like 'discover_tools' and 'suggest_questions' also have similar discovery roles, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow snake_case but lack a consistent pattern: some start with verbs (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'compare_entities'), others with nouns (e.g., 'entity_profile', 'recent_changes'), and prefixes like 'pipeworx_' and 'polymarket_' are used sporadically, making the naming scheme mixed but still readable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Estat Japan', which should focus on Japanese statistics. The majority of tools are general-purpose Pipeworx tools, diluting the scope and making the count feel bloated for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The e-Stat tools (list_data_catalog, search_stats, get_metadata, get_data) provide basic read-only access but lack update or delete operations. The inclusion of many unrelated tools leaves significant gaps for Japanese statistics, and the overall surface is incomplete for the server's implied domain.

Resources