Skip to main content
Glama

Housing 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds crucial behavioral nuances: distinguishing 'could_not_verify' as a pipeline failure not to be treated as evidence, explaining 'unsupported' as no source coverage, and detailing the verification_error payload. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Though long, every sentence adds value: trigger phrases, routing logic, verdict/error semantics, and efficiency claims are all packed in a logical flow. The front-loaded NL examples immediately signal the tool's purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by fully explaining return values (verdicts, verified value, citation, reasoning) and edge cases (could_not_verify with error details, unsupported). It also clarifies the tool's role in reducing multi-step orchestration, giving the agent a complete mental model.

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?

Schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), but the description significantly enhances meaning: it explains tolerance_pct's override behavior (set 1-2 for hallucination detection), the default 'implied by wording, capped at 5', and provides realistic claim examples. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking with defined verdicts (confirmed, refuted, etc.) and the special handling of company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR.

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?

Provides explicit use context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains internal routing between structured and grounded pipelines. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, missing a bit on the when-not/alternatives criterion.

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

All Housing 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools intentionally overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta variant explicitly matching stable behavior right now. entity_profille/recent_changes/compare_entities and the multiple polymarket scanning tools also cover closely related jobs, so an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent base style. However, the naming grammar is mixed: proper verb_noun tools like compare_entities and validate_claim sit beside noun-phrase/domain tools like housing_market_screen and polymarket_edges, plus the awkward compound case_shiller_metro_compare. The housing_ and polymarket_ prefixes help, but the pattern is not uniform enough for a 5.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools far exceeds the 25+ threshold and the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools pertyain to Polymarket, npm scanning, llms.txt generation, and memory, which have little to do with Housing Intel, so the count is not earned by the server's stated domain.

Completeness4/5

For the housing domain specifically, the coverage is strong: market snapshot, affordability, employment, mortgage history, rental/property analysis, metro demand, signal scanning, and Case-Shiller comparisons cover the main data needs. The generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools also backfill specialized queries. The weakness is scope blur, not obvious missing housing operations.

Resources