Skip to main content
Glama

Openstates

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: two distinct execution paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. grounded), verdict semantics, and a critical warning that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. It also clarifies that unsupported means no source exists. This goes far beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Although long, the description is front-loaded with trigger phrases and purpose, then systematically covers routing, return verdicts, and failure-mode interpretation. Every sentence contributes unique value—no filler or redundancy—making the length proportionate to the tool's complexity.

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 fully explains when to use, what it returns (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning), and how to interpret failure modes (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). Given there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden for return semantics and does so comprehensively.

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% and both parameters (claim, tolerance_pct) are thoroughly documented there. The description adds only general context (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math') without introducing new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 natural-language trigger phrases (e.g., 'Is it true that…', 'fact check') and clearly states its function as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as yes/no fact-checking of user claims rather than general Q&A, and it explicitly mentions replacing 4–6 sequential calls, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides internal routing rules for company-financial vs. other claims. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative sibling tool, but the strong contextual guidance (including the fallback pipeline) is sufficient for most callers.

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

All Openstates 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set includes multiple pairs of nearly identical tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage) that overlap heavily in purpose. Many tools also combine unrelated functions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right one without confusion.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no discernible pattern: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, get_bill), and even lengthy descriptive names (scan_competitor_ai_presence) are mixed. The naming style is chaotic and inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on OpenStates (state legislatures). Only a few tools (search_bills, get_bill, etc.) relate to the server's name, while the rest are tangentially related to data lookups, betting, or AI visibility, making the set bloated.

Completeness1/5

The server's core domain (state legislative data) is severely underserved: only about 5 tools cover bills and legislators, lacking basic CRUD operations like create, update, or delete. Many obvious operations (e.g., searching bills by subject, tracking votes) are missing, while unrelated tools dominate.

Resources