Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi

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 explaining the meaning of each verdict, especially the critical distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It clarifies that could_not_verify is not evidence and must not be presented as one. Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior, which the description does not contradict.

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 single dense paragraph, but every sentence serves a purpose: examples, usage, pipeline breakdown, return values, and a caveat. It is longer than strictly necessary but front-loaded with examples and clear usage guidance. A bulleted structure might improve readability.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also covers the two backend paths, making it sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct). The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema states, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It gives concrete example phrases and distinguishes it as a fact-checking tool, unlike generic sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

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' and details the two distinct processing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for everything else). It also notes the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, reinforcing when it is the efficient choice.

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

All Pypi 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among the polymarket tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) and the ask_pipeworx variants. The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent might still misselect in those groups.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations exist, such as 'remember' vs 'recall' and the mixed use of verbs and nouns (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'polymarket_arbitrage'), but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool serves a specific purpose, the sheer number may be overwhelming, and some subsets (like the 7 polymarket tools) could potentially be consolidated. Still, the scope justifies many of them.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of functionalities: Python package management, company research, prediction markets, monitoring, memory, and data queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing subscriptions), but the surface is generally comprehensive and well-rounded.

Resources