Skip to main content
Glama

Osf

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral nuances: the exact meaning of could_not_verify (pipeline failure, not evidence) vs. unsupported (no source), the routing logic, and the percent-delta math for financial claims. This is critical for callers to interpret results correctly and is far richer than what annotations provide.

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 dense but well-structured: trigger phrases, usage, routing, return values, error semantics, and efficiency note all flow logically. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy or fluff.

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 high-complexity claim verification tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return types, verdict semantics, error handling, routing logic, and intended use case. It is self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool safely 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% with detailed inline documentation for both claim and tolerance_pct, including default and allowed ranges. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning 'exact percent-delta math,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with concrete trigger phrases and explicitly states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It goes further by describing the two routing pipelines (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise) and returns a specific verdict set, clearly distinguishing it from sibling research tools.

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 instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides natural-language call patterns. It also explains that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, positioning it as the streamlined alternative for this task.

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

All Osf 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have near-identical or heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx and validate_claim both answer factual questions, and discover_tools and suggest_questions both surface capabilities. The dense set of Polymarket and entity-research tools further blurs boundaries despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case, but they do not follow a single predictable verb_noun pattern: actionable names like ask_pipeworx, search_projects, and compare_entities mix with noun-style names like polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, and recent_changes. The convention is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools exceeds the reasonable scope for a coherent server, and many are near-duplicate variants or members of sprawling tool families (ask_pipeworx variants, multiple Polymarket scanners, several meta/discovery tools). The set would be stronger with consolidation around a smaller number of distinct capabilities.

Completeness1/5

If this server is meant to provide OSF access, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_projects, search_preprints, and get_project exist, with no create/update/delete, file handling, registration, or contributor access. If it is meant to be a broader Pipeworx assistant, the OSF tools are unrelated and the domain is so scattered that coverage is incoherent.

Resources