Skip to main content
Glama

Mfapi India

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent; description adds critical operational nuance: distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, carries error) from 'unsupported' (no source exists), defines all verdict values, and discloses the return includes a pipeworx:// citation and reasoning. Also reveals it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 well-structured: front-loaded query phrasings and purpose, followed by path details, return contract, and an 'IMPORTANT for callers' note. Every sentence adds value, though the run-on opening sentence could be split for readability.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the full return contract (verdict values, actual value with citation, reasoning), the two execution paths, and the crucial error semantics. It provides enough detail for an agent to correctly interpret results and handle failure cases.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context about percent-delta math and tolerance override, but the schema descriptions for 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' already convey the necessary semantics.

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?

Description opens with natural-language query forms and clearly states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes from sibling research tools by focusing on fact-checking and details two specific execution paths (SEC/XBRL for company financials vs. grounded pipeline for everything else).

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 states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides sub-guidance for company-financial vs. other claims. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the scope is clearly bounded.

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

All Mfapi India 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The various `ask_pipeworx*` variants are differentiated by mode (single vs grounded vs research). `get_nav_history` vs `latest_nav` serve different query granularities. Administrative tools like `remember`/`recall`/`forget` are clearly separate. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention and generally use `verb_noun` order (e.g., `ask_pipeworx`, `search_schemes`, `validate_claim`). A few exceptions like `entity_profile` (noun_verb) exist, but the pattern is mostly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 34 tools, the server is quite large, including many specialized tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, administrative memory/subscription tools) that could arguably be split into separate servers. The number feels slightly excessive for a coherent, focused server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an extraordinarily wide range of domains: company financials, SEC filings, FDA drugs, economic data, mutual funds, real estate, prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, and more. It also includes memory, subscription, and feedback mechanisms. There are no obvious gaps for the domains addressed.

Resources