Skip to main content
Glama

Lens Org

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses crucial behavioral details: the dual-pipeline routing (structured SEC EDGAR vs. grounded), return value composition (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), and the precise meanings of 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported' verdicts. It also explains the error structure (verification_error{stage,detail}) and explicitly warns not to treat 'could_not_verify' as evidence. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and is well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and trigger phrases, then provides routing details, return formats, and an important caller warning. Every sentence adds value, from the trigger list to the consolidation benefit. No fluff or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value structure (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and defines the key ambiguous verdicts ('could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'). It covers all critical aspects an agent needs to invoke and interpret results correctly, including tolerance semantics and fallback behavior. The description is complete for a tool of this scope.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic context for 'claim' by explaining the company-financial vs. other-claim routing, and for 'tolerance_pct' by mentioning hallucination detection use cases. This goes beyond mere schema repetition, justifying a 4 rather than a 3.

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. It provides specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that,' and distinguishes this tool from general Q&A siblings by focusing on factual correctness of user statements. The explicit mention of replacing 4–6 sequential calls further clarifies its intended role.

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,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains the specialized paths for company-financial claims vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Lens Org 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router (beta is currently identical), while bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunities. ai_visibility_check is effectively a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence, and discover_tools overlaps heavily with suggest_questions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are uniformly snake_case and descriptive, but the pattern is mixed: verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, search_within) coexist with noun-first names (patent, scholarly, entity_profile), and the Lens.org pairing of patent/patents_search vs scholarly/scholarly_search is structurally inconsistent. Subgroups like pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent, keeping the overall set readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this exceeds the 16-25 'heavy' band and bundles at least four distinct domains: Lens.org bibliometrics, Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket trading analysis, and memory/subscription utilities. While many tools serve legitimate purposes, the set feels sprawling and several variants (e.g., the three ask_pipeworx flavors) inflate the count without adding equivalent value.

Completeness4/5

The Pipeworx/Polymarket ecosystem is thoroughly covered with routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, validation, comparison, monitoring, and memory all present. The Lens.org portion is thin (search + fetch for patents and scholarly works) but covers the core read path; minor gaps exist such as no batch/export operations and no patent-number lookup.

Resources