Skip to main content
Glama

Htmltext

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded), the special semantic of 'could_not_verify' being a failure to check (not evidence), and the distinction from 'unsupported'. This is exactly the contextual depth needed beyond structured fields.

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. Every sentence earns its place: example queries, routing rules, return enumeration, critical caveats, and performance benefits. It is front-loaded with the most important purpose statements, and the caveats about could_not_verify are crucial. Slightly verbose but proportional to complexity.

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 burden of explaining return values, and it delivers: enumerates all verdict types, mentions citation and reasoning, distinguishes error cases, and explains the two underlying pipelines. It even preempts common misuse with the 'could_not_verify' warning. The tool is complex and this description is remarkably complete.

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 good parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tolerance_pct override behavior (default from wording, capped at 5, and guidance to set 1-2 for hallucination detection) and by giving examples that flesh out claim format. This goes beyond the schema's explicit field 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 opens with concrete natural-language query patterns ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…'), clearly identifying the tool as claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing a specialized verification pipeline with structured SEC routes for financial claims and a grounded pipeline for others, not just general Q&A.

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' and explains the routing between financial and non-financial claims. It also notes this tool replaces 4-6 sequential calls. However, it does not contrast directly with near siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so the 'when-not' guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Htmltext 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools form overlapping clusters (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded, the five polymarket_* tools, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions) that could cause misselection on first glance. The detailed descriptions mostly clarify the boundaries, but the overlaps are real and require careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is overwhelmingly snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (ask_, extract_, generate_, list_, resolve_, subscribe), which is predictable. A few noun-style or special-form names (entity_profile, html_to_text, recent_changes, polymarket_edges) break the pattern, but these are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools the surface is heavy, especially for a server named 'Htmltext' where only 4 of 34 tools relate to HTML. Even accounting for the broad data/research domain, the set includes several redundant research and Polymarket helpers that push it past a well-scoped count.

Completeness4/5

The major subdomains are well covered: HTML extraction, entity/data research, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions all have the core operations needed with no obvious dead ends. Some niches are shallow (HTML lacks a general fetch/render tool; scan_dependency is a one-off), but agents can work around these gaps.

Resources