Skip to main content
Glama

Hnb Hr

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the two routing paths, the verdict taxonomy, and especially the semantics of could_not_verify (check did not happen, not evidence) and unsupported (no source found). This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 lengthy but dense with high-value information, front-loaded with trigger phrases and purpose. Every section earns its place, though the opening list of query patterns is somewhat repetitive. It is structured logically, detailing routing, outputs, and failure semantics without tangential content.

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, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the two distinct processing paths, enumerates all verdict types, clarifies ambiguous verdicts, notes the inclusion of evidence citations, and justifies why this tool consolidates multiple sequential calls. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers return values and expected behavior.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description enhances this by explaining tolerance_pct's override behavior, default behavior, and practical usage for hallucination detection, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. Claim is given illustrative examples, though the schema already provides them.

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 trigger phrases and explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the internal routing (SEC EDGAR for financial claims vs grounded pipeline for others) and mentions it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its specific role clear.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' supported by example query patterns. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the trigger phrases and scope ('ANY OTHER factual claim') make the intended use unambiguous.

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

All Hnb Hr 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, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx), and deep_research and validate_claim also overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The Polymarket tools are more distinct, but the query family creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix leading verbs (ask_, compare_, resolve_, scan_) with leading nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, hnb_currency_rate) and there are multiple subfamily prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, hnb_*). All are snake_case, but no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern is followed.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the server name ('Hnb Hr') implies a narrow Croatian banking scope while the majority of tools are for a broad data research platform. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) inflate the count beyond what the apparent purpose needs.

Completeness3/5

The HNB currency functionality is complete (single and all rates, historical and latest), and the broader data platform offers good coverage via the ask_pipeworx router, subscriptions, and memory tools. However, there are gaps (no direct HNB news or historical archive tool, patents soft-fail, and out-of-domain tools like generate_llms_txt), and the mismatch between server name and content leaves the surface feeling incomplete.

Resources