Skip to main content
Glama

Open Sanctions

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by explaining critical behavioral nuances: could_not_verify indicates a failed check (not evidence against), unsupported indicates no source coverage, and it notes it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls.' This is exactly the kind of context needed to safely invoke the tool.

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 appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity. It front-loads user-facing triggers, then covers the two routing paths, return verdicts, and a necessary caveat. Every sentence adds value—no redundant fluff—and the structured flow makes it easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values, verdict types, citation format, and the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also documents the two execution pipelines and the tolerance_pct configuration, making the tool self-contained 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.

Parameters5/5

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

Both parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial meaning: for tolerance_pct it explains the override semantics, the default behavior ('implied by wording, capped at 5'), and a use case ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'). The claim parameter is illustrated with concrete examples, enriching the schema's skeletal descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification service: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It provides example user phrasings ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', etc.) and explicitly distinguishes its two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for anything else). This is a specific verb+resource description that stands apart 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 states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies the fallback routing behavior for different claim types. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it (e.g., for non-factual questions), which prevents a 5.

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

All Open Sanctions 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) which all serve to query data but with subtle differences. An agent would struggle to distinguish which to use without deep understanding of their nuances.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern in snake_case, but there are exceptions like 'forget', 'recall', 'remember' which are single verbs, and names like 'ask_pipeworx' mix verb and proper noun. Overall pattern is discernible but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Open Sanctions' which implies a focused domain. The tool set spans sanctions, meta-querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more, making it feel bloated and unfocused relative to the server's name.

Completeness2/5

For a sanctions server, only two tools (search_entities, get_entity) directly address the domain, missing obvious operations like update, delete, or list. Many tools are unrelated to sanctions, leaving the core domain incomplete.

Resources