Skip to main content
Glama

Imf

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, open-world, idempotent operation. The description adds crucial semantic details: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, while unsupported means no source was found. This prevents misinterpretation of verdicts and goes beyond the annotations.

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 fairly long but every section earns its place: trigger phrases, pipeline routing, verdict semantics, and a caution about misinterpretation. It is front-loaded with examples and structured logically, though slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists all verdict categories, the actual value with citation, reasoning, and the verification_error structure. It could include a concrete example output, but it covers the essential information for correct use.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct, including the tolerance overriding behavior and defaults. The tool description does not add new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification with explicit trigger phrases like "fact check" and "verify the claim that". It states the output is a verdict, distinguishing it from general ask tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also describes the two pipeline paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving clear guidance on when to use.

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

All Imf 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several natural-language query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) have heavily overlapping purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. The five Polymarket tools also have subtle boundaries, though the IMF, memory, and subscription clusters are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_data, resolve_entity, subscribe, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist: noun-first names like entity_profile and ai_visibility_check, brand-prefixed names like pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending, and ask_pipeworx_beta using a suffix instead of an underscore.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the range that remains easily navigable, and the count is inflated by many meta-tools, overlapping query entry points, and five distinct Polymarket tools. The server is named Imf, yet it also carries npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, AI visibility checks, and prediction-market tooling, making the scope feel unfocused.

Completeness3/5

Subdomain lifecycles are reasonably covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and data access has discovery, lookup, grounding, and research paths. However, the overall domain is so broad that a complete surface is hard to define, and the IMF-specific portion is thin (only get_data, get_datasets, and search_indicators).

Resources