Skip to main content
Glama

Jina Reader

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. grounded pipeline), the full verdict set, the critical distinction between could_not_verify (a failed check, not evidence) and unsupported (no source found), and the inclusion of pipeworx:// citations. No contradictions with 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 longer than average but front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence earns its place: examples, usage, mechanism, return semantics, and a caller warning. It is well-structured despite its length, though it could be tightened slightly by trimming redundant phrasing.

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 (two routing paths, six verdicts, failure semantics), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return format, source handling, and the special meanings of could_not_verify and unsupported, leaving no major gaps even without an output schema.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for claim and tolerance_pct, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail (e.g., exact percent-delta math) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It includes specific example query patterns ("Is it true that...", "fact check") and distinguishes between financial claims and all other factual claims, making its scope unambiguous relative to sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear context. It also mentions that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it is the preferred single-call approach. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or describe when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Jina Reader 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and specialized tools like entity_profile or validate_claim that can answer similar questions. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, with most using a verb_noun structure (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions or chaotic naming.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool has a distinct purpose, the number is borderline for a coherent set and could be streamlined, especially given the overlapping functionality.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of query and analysis tasks, including data lookup, comparison, betting research, memory, and subscriptions. However, there are notable gaps (e.g., no update/delete for most data, no user management) and some tools seem out of place (e.g., generate_llms_txt).

Resources