Skip to main content
Glama

Producthunt

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

A4.4/5.0
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 significant behavioral detail: it explains the two routing paths, the exact verdict types, the citation format, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify (did not happen, not evidence) and unsupported (no source). This goes well beyond the annotations and provides essential nuance for an agent.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with natural-language examples, flows logically through the two paths, return values, and error semantics. The 'IMPORTANT for callers' section is critical. It is not wasteful, though slightly verbose for a tool description.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and it does thoroughly: verdict types, citation, reasoning, and error conditions. It also covers the routing logic and the distinction between error states. This is complete for a complex NL verification tool.

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% for both parameters, so the schema fully documents claim and tolerance_pct. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 validates natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, using verbs like 'verify', 'fact check', 'confirm or refute'. It differentiates from siblings by describing the dedicated SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path and the fallback grounded pipeline, and explicitly says it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes between company-financial claims and other claims, and warns about the could_not_verify vs unsupported semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls' hints at alternatives.

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

All Producthunt 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are functionally near-identical: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly a duplicate of ask_pipeworx (descriptions say they 'currently match exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in answer-extraction mode. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on edge-finding and fill-risk, and ai_visibility_check duplicates scan_competitor_ai_presence's per-entity probing. Agents will frequently misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is consistently snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern (get_post, top_launches, subscribe, forget, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations exist where nouns lead (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts, bet_research), and polymarket_* names use a domain-prefix style rather than pure verb_noun, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is at the heavy end, and the count is badly mismatched to the server's stated identity: it is named 'Producthunt' yet only 2 of 33 tools (get_post, top_launches) are Product Hunt related — the rest are Pipeworx data lookup, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. The redundancy (duplicate ask_pipeworx_beta, overlapping polymarket tools) inflates the count without adding surface.

Completeness2/5

Judged against the Product Hunt domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: coverage is limited to list-top-launches and get-one-post, with no search, users, comments, votes, collections, or categories — and no way to act on Product Hunt data at all. As a general Pipeworx data platform the coverage is broader, but for the named purpose there are large gaps that will force agent failures.

Resources