Skip to main content
Glama

Nato

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it defines the verdict enum, distinguishes the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen, with error structure) from unsupported (no source), and notes that evidence includes pipeworx:// citations. This is exactly the kind of extra transparency that helps callers interpret results correctly.

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 long but every sentence carries essential information: examples, routing logic, return types, edge cases, and the efficiency gain. It is well-structured with clear separations between when-to-use, how routing works, what is returned, and critical warnings. No filler or repetition.

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 tool is complex (two routing paths, multiple verdicts, error handling) and has no output schema. The description covers the return format (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), explains the subtle difference between could_not_verify and unsupported, and hints at the underlying pipeline. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret results 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' have descriptive comments in the schema. The tool description adds context about the default tolerance behavior and the use of percent-delta math, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with explicit natural-language examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') that make the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly specifies a noun phrase: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the structured SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains two routing paths. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools or say when not to use, but it positions itself as the replacement for 4-6 sequential calls, providing clear context for when it is appropriate.

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

All Nato 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-variants, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in purpose. Descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other, but an agent must read very long definitions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is consistently snake_case with helpful domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, and scan_*. Deviations such as deep_research, entity_profile, recent_alerts, and the bare verbs remember/recall/forget break a strict verb_noun pattern but remain predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is heavy for one server, and several groups could plausibly be consolidated. However, the platform spans data lookup, research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and utilities, so the breadth partially justifies the count.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity comparison, claim validation, prediction-market analysis, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and discovery. There are no obvious dead ends, and gaps are minor or workaroundable.

Resources