Skip to main content
Glama

Hash

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the two routing pipelines (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. grounded), enumerating exact verdicts (confirmed, refuted, etc.), and crucially clarifying that could_not_verify is not evidence and unsupported means no source exists. This is rich behavioral context.

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 well-organized, starting with trigger phrases, then purpose, pipeline logic, return values, and a critical caller warning. Every sentence delivers operational value, though the initial trigger phrase list is somewhat redundant and could be tightened.

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 covers return values and semantics: the verdict types, pipeworx:// citation, error handling, and unsupported vs. could_not_verify. It also explains efficiency gain over sequential calls, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about claim processing (financial vs. other) but does not introduce new parameter syntax or constraints. This is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource pairing: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It lists trigger phrases and defines the return verdicts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx (Q&A) and deep_research (open-ended investigation).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes between financial and non-financial claim handling. However, it does not name alternative tools for non-claim tasks, 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 Hash 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes despite overlapping domains like prediction markets, but detailed descriptions help agents differentiate. A few tools like `ask_pipeworx` and `deep_research` could be confused without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing `ask_`, `polymarket_`, `scan_`, `recent_`, `entity_`, etc., with no unifying convention. The server name 'Hash' mismatches the tool set entirely.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a focused server, but the set covers many areas. The count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, yet each tool has a clear purpose.

Completeness2/5

The tool set feels like a collection of unrelated utilities rather than a coherent domain. Core hashing functionality is minimal, while other areas like prediction markets are over-represented with gaps elsewhere.

Resources