Skip to main content
Glama

Exa

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark it as read-only and idempotent; the description adds crucial semantics for could_not_verify vs. unsupported, explains the two pipelines (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded), and clarifies that could_not_verify is not evidence. No contradiction with 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?

Though longer than typical, the description is front-loaded with trigger phrases, organized by pipeline, and ends with an efficiency note. Each sentence adds value; there is no fluff.

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 fully specifies return values (verdicts, value with citation, reasoning), error semantics, and scope. This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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?

Schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context on tolerance behavior and financial claim math, but this is largely redundant with the schema, so only slight added value.

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 natural-language claim verification with trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that.' It distinguishes financial claims (SEC EDGAR path) from other factual claims and lists verdict types, making it easily distinguishable from siblings like search or deep_research.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also covers the full scope (any factual claim) and mentions replacing sequential calls, implying it's the preferred consolidated approach.

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

All Exa 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools share the same basic purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to data sources, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The polymarket_* family has five overlapping tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread), though detailed descriptions and explicit 'use when' guidance help separate them. Overall, an agent can generally pick the right tool but faces real ambiguity in the query-router and betting clusters.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case convention (search, get_contents, resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe, unsubscribe). However, several noun-first names break the pattern: entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, and the polymarket_* family, plus adjective-noun names like recent_alerts and recent_changes. The deviations are readable and mostly clustered around product-specific domains, so the inconsistency is minor.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this significantly exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool surface. The server bundles four distinct domains — web search, structured data routing, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscriptions — into one MCP endpoint, which inflates the count. While each domain has some justification, a more focused split into separate servers would yield better coherence.

Completeness4/5

The surface is remarkably thorough for its blended scope: search has query/retrieve/similar/within, structured data has default/grounded/beta/deep-research modes, subscriptions have full lifecycle coverage, and memory has save/recall/delete. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription-update tool and no direct pipeworx:// URI reader in the tool list, but these are workable. The prediction-market and entity-analysis workflows are covered end to end.

Resources