Skip to main content
Glama

Etherscan

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only give readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints. The description adds deep behavioral context: the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source found), explicit instruction not to show could_not_verify as evidence, and the two processing paths with exact percent-delta math. This greatly exceeds annotation coverage.

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 long but every section has value: trigger phrases, routing rules, verdict list, and edge-case clarifications. It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with the efficiency claim. It could be slightly tightened, but the structure is logical and not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating all six verdicts and explaining the ambiguous ones (could_not_verify, unsupported). It also covers both claim handling paths, the citation format, and the verification_error structure, making the tool's behavior and results predictable.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with full descriptions and examples (claim and tolerance_pct). The description adds minimal parameter detail beyond the schema—mainly contextualizing the tolerance behavior—so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with trigger phrases and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources', clearly identifying the tool's verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the SEC EDGAR fast path for company-financial claims and the grounded pipeline for all other claims, making its purpose unique.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' The description also explains how claims are routed (financial vs other) and clarifies when to expect certain verdicts (could_not_verify vs unsupported), providing strong guidance on invocation and interpretation.

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

All Etherscan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) with only marginal differences, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in its goal of finding betting edges. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description in detail.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun (get_balance, list_transactions), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and adjectival forms (deep_research, compare_entities). The naming is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' even for a general-purpose data server. The situation is worsened by the fact that the server is named Etherscan but only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Ethereum/blockchain, making the count unjustified for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the de facto domain (Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market research, entity profiles, claim validation, subscriptions, memory), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers lookup, research, comparison, grounding, and monitoring. Missing are a few edge operations (e.g., no Etherscan transaction-by-hash tool), but the broader domain is well-covered with only minor gaps.

Resources