Skip to main content
Glama

Isin

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description explains the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and details the semantics of each verdict, especially the critical warning that could_not_verify is not evidence and must not be shown as one. This is significant behavioral context 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 well-structured with clear sections: example phrasings, usage, pipeline explanation, return values, and important caveats. It's somewhat long and the initial list of paraphrases is redundant, but every substantive piece earns its place.

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 fully specifies the return verdicts, the actual value with citation, reasoning, and the special error semantics for could_not_verify and unsupported. It also explains the routing rules for different claim types, making it complete for a two-parameter tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents both `claim` and `tolerance_pct`. The description adds example claims but doesn't add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with sample query phrasings. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the two-pipeline approach for financial vs. other claims, making it unique among the listed tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives like ask_pipeworx or deep_research, so it lacks the full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All Isin 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping clusters: the three ask_pipeworx variants and multiple polymarket analysis tools can cause selection ambiguity. Descriptions help, yet boundaries between entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and ask_pipeworx require careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names almost all follow snake_case with verb-noun or verb-phrase structure (ask_pipeworx, validate_isin, list_subscriptions), and family prefixes like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are consistent. Minor deviations include one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) and adjective-noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile).

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is well above the 25-tool threshold that typically feels heavy, even though the Pipeworx platform is broad in scope. The server named 'Isin' exposes a large toolkit far beyond its apparent identifier-focused purpose, making the count feel excessive.

Completeness4/5

The broader data-access, research, subscription, and utility workflows are well covered, including discovery, grounded queries, entity profiles, comparisons, and claim validation. Minor gaps include the lack of direct pipeworx:// URI reading and ISIN issuer resolution, but agents can work around these.

Resources