Skip to main content
Glama

Opencitations

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: meaning of could_not_verify vs. unsupported, presence of verification_error, routing logic between structured and grounded pipelines, and that it returns a verdict with citation. This is valuable beyond annotation 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 a dense paragraph with multiple clauses, but each part contributes: query examples, usage, pipeline routing, return values, and error semantics. It is longer than ideal but well-structured and free of redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict enum, value, citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It covers scope, edge cases, and integration (replaces sequential calls), leaving no significant gaps for evaluation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context like 'exact percent-delta math' and natural-language phrasing but doesn't introduce parameter semantics not already in the schema.

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 gives specific verb 'verify' and resource 'claim', plus example query phrases, and distinguishes it from other tools by focusing on fact-checking with verdict output.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates handling of company-financial claims vs. other claims, effectively guiding when to use this tool vs. alternatives like deep_research or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

All Opencitations 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical router variants, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/ai_visibility_check all inspect companies from overlapping angles. The six Polymarket tools form a tightly-overlapping mini-domain that further crowds the surface.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but verbs are inconsistently used: many tools are noun phrases (citation_count, entity_profile, polymarket_edges) while others start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some prefixes like ask_* and polymarket_* help, but the overall verb/noun pattern is not coherent.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the typical 3–15 tool scope, and several are redundant variants (three ask_pipeworx modes) or hyper-specific sub-tools (six Polymarket tools). The server name suggests a focused citation service, but only six tools actually address citations, leaving the set bloated with unrelated data query and memory utilities.

Completeness3/5

For a general data-query gateway, the surface is quite broad and covers lookup, profiling, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory. But as an OpenCitations server it lacks a way to discover papers by topic and the breadth of the other domains is unwieldy and unowned—so notable gaps exist in any plausible stated purpose.

Resources