Skip to main content
Glama

Norges Bank

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it enumerates the possible verdicts, explains the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported,' and warns that 'could_not_verify' carries a verification_error and must not be treated as evidence. This is valuable for callers and goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with a clear intro, route breakdown, return summary, and important caveats. Although it's longer than average, every sentence earns its place by providing critical details (verdict semantics, error handling, routing, efficiency benefit). It is front-loaded with user intent phrases and maintains 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 tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return values, verdict meanings, error cases, source routing, citation format, and even why it replaces multiple steps. There are no significant gaps for a caller to understand what the tool does and how to interpret its response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, the description enriches them: it gives concrete claim examples and clarifies that tolerance_pct overrides implied wording tolerance, with a specific use case for hallucination detection. This far exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage by adding usage nuance and constraints.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It lists trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that,' making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes its behavior from generic search by explaining the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others), which differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further specifies the scope (company-financial vs. any other factual claim) and notes that it replaces multiple sequential calls, which helps the agent decide when to invoke it instead of orchestration. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't enumerate exclusions, the routing rules provide strong context.

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

All Norges Bank 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., entity_profile vs compare_entities), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as among polymarket tools, which could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (list_flows, get_series) with descriptive names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research) and varying conventions (snake_case vs no underscores).

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side but manageable for a broad platform; however, the server name 'Norges Bank' suggests a narrower scope, making the count feel bloated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Norges Bank', many tools are irrelevant (polymarket, pipeworx meta-tools, memory, etc.), leaving significant gaps in core Norwegian banking data coverage.

Resources