Skip to main content
Glama

Mime

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial context beyond these: the two processing pipelines (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback), the exact verdict values, the meaning of could_not_verify vs. unsupported, and the presence of verification_error. This is transparent about edge cases and error handling, going well beyond the structured hints.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with trigger phrases, then usage, return values, caveats, and finally the efficiency benefit. It is longer than necessary but every part earns its place by conveying essential routing and error semantics. The structure is logical with clear sections.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating possible verdicts, explaining the citation format, and clarifying ambiguous result states. It also addresses when to substitute other tools and notes the tool's role in reducing sequential calls. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 provides complete coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct). The description adds practical guidance, such as using tolerance_pct 1-2 for hallucination detection and explaining that it overrides the claim-implied tolerance. This adds meaningful value over the schema alone.

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 lists trigger phrases and explicitly distinguishes between company-financial claims and other factual claims. This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates it from 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,' which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the routing logic for different claim types. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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

All Mime 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as the ask_pipeworx family (standard, beta, grounded) and the multiple Polymarket analysis tools (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research). The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still misselect between deep_research vs ask_pipeworx or polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming patterns are mixed: many tools use verb_noun (discover_tools, validate_claim, compare_entities), but others are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), single verbs (remember, recall, forget), or unusual forms (extension_for, search_within, ask_pipeworx). The polymarket_ prefix and ask_pipeworx family provide some consistency, but overall the style is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a large number for the server's scope. While it covers many domains (data querying, entity research, Polymarket analysis, subscriptions, memory, utilities), there is redundancy: three ask_pipeworx variants and six Polymarket-specific tools inflate the count. Several tools could be merged or dropped without losing functionality, making the set feel heavier than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers its core domains well: data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity resolution (resolve_entity, entity_profile, compare_entities), Polymarket analysis (research, arbitrage, risk, edges, tracking, cross-venue), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/alerts), memory (remember/recall/forget), and utilities (MIME lookup, dependency scan). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs and no update operation for subscriptions, but these are not critical.

Resources