Skip to main content
Glama

Hex Pm

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral nuance: the two pipeline routes, the meaning of 'unsupported,' and the critical warning that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it stops short of covering rate limits or auth details.

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 information-dense and well-structured: trigger phrases, usage statement, pipeline explanation, return contract, and a highlighted 'IMPORTANT for callers' note. Every sentence contributes value, though the length is slightly more than necessary for a simple read-only tool. It remains appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values and edge cases. It enumerates the verdict enums, mentions the pipeworx:// citation, and provides explicit semantics for 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported.' It also notes the tool's efficiency benefit. This is a complete, self-contained description for a claim-verification tool with two distinct processing paths.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have detailed descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much about the parameters themselves—it mentions 'exact percent-delta math' but does not explicitly explain tolerance_pct beyond what the schema already says. It places the claim in a natural-language context, but the schema already provides examples.

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 a clear verb phrase ('natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources') and a full set of trigger examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the structured SEC/EDGAR path for company financials versus a grounded pipeline for everything else, and by naming its verdict set. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which gives a clear when-to-use signal. It also differentiates internal paths (company financials vs. other claims) and notes it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, implying efficiency. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or provide 'when-not-to-use' exclusions.

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

All Hex Pm 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping question-answering territory: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route the same data catalog and differ mainly in output guarantees. The six Polymarket tools also split edge detection, arbitrage, and fill-risk in ways that are easy for an agent to conflate. Clear exceptions like the memory and subscription trios keep it from a 1.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and most follow a readable verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (get_package, list_releases, scan_dependency, ask_pipeworx_*). The Polymarket family uses noun phrases after a prefix (polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk) and a few names are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes), which is a minor inconsistency rather than chaos.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well beyond the comfortable 3-15 range and even above the 16-25 heavy range. The broad Pipeworx data scope justifies some expansion, but identical ask_pipeworx_beta, six overlapping Polymarket tools, and unrelated utility families (Hex.pm, AI visibility, memory, llms.txt) suggest bloat rather than deliberate scoping.

Completeness4/5

Within its main data-access purpose, the surface is unusually complete: query (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded/validate_claim), deep research, entity resolution/profiling, comparison, change feeds, and search-within are all present, and memory/subscription subdomains have full CRUD. There are minor gaps for the package side (no docs/dependents) and the hodgepodge of domains makes a single 'complete' surface hard to define, but no workflow hits a hard dead end.

Resources