Skip to main content
Glama

Photon

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?

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the two-path routing, the return verdict values, the citation mechanism, and the crucial distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check failed) and 'unsupported' (no source). It includes an explicit caller warning about misinterpreting 'could_not_verify'. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 long but every section earns its place: example intents, routing logic, return values, and the caller warning. It is front-loaded with clear language and structured into coherent sections. Some redundancy exists ('confirm or refute' overlaps with 'fact check'), but overall it is efficient for the complexity it covers.

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, the meaning of verdict types, and error semantics. It also notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving context on efficiency. No critical information appears missing for a complex tool like this.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers both parameters fully with examples and constraints (100% coverage). The description adds semantic context by explaining the 'exact percent-delta math' and how tolerance_pct overrides implied tolerances, which clarifies parameter behavior. It does not introduce entirely new meaning but reinforces 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 does natural-language claim verification with specific verb ('verify', 'fact check') and resource ('against authoritative sources'). It distinguishes this from sibling search tools by emphasizing it checks factual correctness and returns a verdict. Examples of user intents and the two verification paths make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains when to prefer the structured SEC path vs the grounded pipeline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, though the singular purpose makes this less critical.

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

All Photon 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within clusters like Pipeworx queries (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.). Overlap is minimal and explicitly addressed in descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case, and most follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). Exceptions like remember, reverse are still single words in the same style.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is on the high side but justified by the wide scope: data querying, betting, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool earns its place, and the count is not excessive given the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflows of querying structured data, comparing entities, validating claims, scanning dependencies, and monitoring, with few gaps (e.g., no direct data visualization). Minor gaps exist but are manageable.

Resources