Skip to main content
Glama

Monarch Initiative

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining the verdict taxonomy, the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, the dual-path pipeline (SEC EDGAR vs grounded), and the returned citation format. It even warns against misinterpreting could_not_verify as evidence, adding critical behavioral nuance.

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 on the longer side, but it is well-structured: it leads with trigger phrases and purpose, then explains pathways, outputs, and critical caveats. Every sentence adds value, especially the caveat about could_not_verify. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

The description covers the tool's behavior comprehensively: return values (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), error handling, routing logic, and typical use cases. With no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the expected outputs and edge cases, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct), including examples and default behavior. The tool description adds context about how claims are processed but does not materially enhance the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function with specific verb phrases (e.g., "fact check", "verify the claim that…") and a well-defined resource (natural-language claims verified against authoritative sources). It also distinguishes itself from a multi-step alternative by mentioning it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making the purpose highly specific.

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." It also provides context on how different claim types are routed, but does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it's clear context without formal exclusions.

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

All Monarch Initiative 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, especially within the same domain (e.g., Polymarket betting tools each serve a specific function). However, the multiple data-querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) could cause confusion despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., bet_research, compare_entities), but there are exceptions like ai_visibility_check, forget, and suggest_questions. The mix of imperative verbs and descriptive phrases creates inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server feels overloaded. While each domain (biomedical, financial, betting) is covered extensively, the sheer number of tools likely overwhelms agents, and many tools could be merged or split into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is comprehensive for its declared purpose, covering biomedical queries, company data, betting analysis, memory management, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to delete a bet, no write operations for biomedical data), but the breadth is impressive.

Resources