Skip to main content
Glama

Fintech Intel

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). It discloses the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR + XBRL vs. grounded pipeline), explains the meaning of verdicts, and crucially differentiates 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) from 'unsupported' (no source exists). It also notes the replacement of sequential calls, providing rich behavioral context. 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?

Although the description is long, it is densely packed with essential information and front-loaded with concrete example queries. Every sentence adds value—covering paths, return values, error semantics, and efficiency benefit—without fluff. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (two pipelines, multiple verdict types, error handling) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning), clarifies the critical distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, and specifies the supported claim types. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage). The description adds further nuance: tolerance_pct overrides the claim's implied tolerance, is capped at 5, and can be set to 1–2 for hallucination detection. It also clarifies that the claim is a natural-language statement. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on claim verification and explicitly noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, setting it apart from broader tools like deep_research or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR path) and other claims (grounded pipeline). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings, 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 Fintech Intel 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, discover_tools/suggest_questions/pipeworx_trending all serve discovery, and multiple Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) find opportunities. Descriptions help but an agent could easily pick the wrong data-query tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, mostly verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim) and prefix groups (fintech_*, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile or recent_changes are noun phrases but still readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a coherent set; the server appears to bundle a general-purpose data research platform, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions under one 'Fintech Intel' name. Many meta-tools could be split into separate servers, and the count burdens an agent with unnecessary choices.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the fintech/data-intel domain thoroughly: SEC filings, FDIC, FDA, economic data, real estate, prediction markets, monitoring subscriptions, and memory. Gaps are minor—e.g., no direct tool for historical stock charts, but the router (ask_pipeworx) handles such queries.

Resources