Skip to main content
Glama

lorem

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. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds crucial behavior: the structured vs grounded routing, meaning of special verdicts (could_not_verify vs unsupported), that could_not_verify must not be shown as evidence, and that unsupported means no source coverage. This goes beyond annotations and prevents misuse in agent reasoning.

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 dense and purpose-driven, covering triggers, routing, return value, edge cases, and efficiency. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and structured logically. Every sentence contributes necessary information for correct use of a complex tool, so no waste.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdicts, evidence, reasoning), the two execution paths, and the important distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also explains the integration benefit over multi-step pipelines, making it complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with well-written parameter descriptions: claim has examples, tolerance_pct explains override and default. The description text doesn't add much beyond the schema for parameters, but it does contextualize tolerance_pct with the cap and hallucination-detection use case. This is baseline for full schema 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 is for natural-language claim verification with explicit trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by scoping to factual claim checking. It also details the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving a direct usage context. It also notes that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it should be used as a single-call alternative. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the context is clear and specific enough.

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

All lorem 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly duplicating ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) also heavily overlaps, and ai_visibility_check is a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would frequently be unable to tell which tool to select.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe), and several are noun-first domain names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile). There is no uniform verb convention, and the mix makes it hard to predict what a tool does from its name.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this is well above the 'heavy' threshold and includes several near-duplicates: three ask_pipeworx variants and six polymarket_* tools. While the underlying platform is broad, this meta-layer could be consolidated to 15-20 tools without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The core data-query workflow is well covered: ask, deep research, entity profile, compare, validate, resolve ID, and search inside documents. The memory lifecycle (remember/recall/forget) and subscription lifecycle (subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe) are also complete. However, the set includes unrelated utilities (generate_paragraphs, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) that don't belong to the main data domain, and there is no direct tool to execute a raw discovered tool by name.

Resources