Skip to main content
Glama

Malwarebazaar

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds crucial behavioral context: the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, the verification_error{stage,detail} structure, and the fact that it replaces multiple sequential calls. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured: it starts with naturals examples, states the core purpose, then explains the routing, return values, and special cases. Each sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains the return verdicts, evidence with citations, and reasoning. It also covers error handling for could_not_verify, the difference from unsupported, and the efficiency benefit, making the tool's behavior completely understandable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining tolerance_pct semantics: it overrides the implied tolerance, suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection, and defaults to wording-based cap of 5. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 it performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and focuses on fact-checking rather than general 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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the two paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims vs. grounded pipeline for others). It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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

All Malwarebazaar 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with extra verification. Malware sample searches also overlap across search_family, search_tag, search_signature, and recent_samples, while ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mostly uses snake_case and verb-first names like get_sample_info and validate_claim, which is helpful. However, conventions are mixed across ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, search_*, and noun-style names like recent_samples and entity_profile, so there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already over the comfortable range, but the bigger issue is that the server is named Malwarebazaar while only about five tools actually deal with malware. The remaining tools belong to an unrelated data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, making the count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the MalwareBazaar domain, the set covers metadata lookups and filtered sample searches but lacks sample submission, retrieval, or deeper analysis workflow. The rest of the tool surface targets unrelated domains, so there is no coherent, complete lifecycle for either malware intelligence or the broader feature set.

Resources