Skip to main content
Glama

hackernews

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing nuanced behavior: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (verification didn't happen, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (searched but no source found), the routing logic, verbatim evidence with citations, and the fact that it judges claims after grounding. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with actionable examples, then states purpose, routing logic, return values, and critical caller caveats. Every sentence contributes: the query patterns help pattern-matching, the fast-path vs. grounded explanation clarifies behavior, and the error-semantics note is essential. No redundancy or filler.

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 this is a complex tool without an output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the verdict types, the return format (actual value with citation and reasoning), the two verification pipelines, and the exact meaning of 'could_not_verify' vs. 'unsupported.' It also covers the idempotent/read-only nature implicitly through context. The agent has everything needed to invoke this tool safely and interpret its result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema, notably that tolerance_pct 'overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording' and suggests a specific use case ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'). This goes beyond the raw schema and gives the agent a clearer mental model of how to use the parameter.

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 concrete query examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and immediately states the core purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing an end-to-end claim-verification workflow that 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear trigger condition. It also explains the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for anything else). However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All hackernews 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and deep_research also overlaps with them. The Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have fuzzy boundaries. An agent could easily pick the wrong meta-tool or duplicate functionality.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (get_item, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), some are adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts), and a few are single verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe). This is readable but not a consistent convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, this is far too many for a server named 'hackernews'. The bulk of the tools concern Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions — unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. Many of these could be split into separate servers, and the HN-specific functionality would be better served by a focused set of ~5-8 tools.

Completeness2/5

For the Hacker News domain implied by the server name, the surface is incomplete: there are read-only tools (search, top stories, item/comments) but no write functionality (submit, comment, vote) and no user profile access. The broader data-research capabilities are fairly comprehensive, but that does not rescue the server's coherence given its stated name.

Resources