Skip to main content
Glama

Realestate

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max 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.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds important behavioral nuance: 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, while 'unsupported' means no source was found. It also discloses the routing logic (financial vs. other claims). This goes well beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 dense and somewhat long, but every part serves a purpose: trigger examples, usage, internal routing, return values, and critical caveats. It uses semicolons and an 'IMPORTANT' callout for clarity. While not as tight as a two-sentence description, it avoids fluff and is well structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so thoroughly: enumerates all verdict types, mentions the actual value with pipeworx:// citation and reasoning, and explains error semantics for could_not_verify and unsupported. This fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both `claim` and `tolerance_pct`. The description adds context about tolerance behavior ('exact percent-delta math' and default capped at 5) and clarifies how claims are routed, which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema. A high-coverage schema would baseline at 3, but the added context justifies a 4.

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 states a specific action: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources', with trigger phrases and a clear outcome (verdict categories). It distinguishes itself from sibling ask/tool tools by focusing on fact-checking and returning a structured verdict. The examples of claim types further clarify scope.

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?

Provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, signaling when it is more efficient. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Realestate 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

Multiple tools occupy the same natural-language lookup niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, and the beta tool is currently described as identical to the stable router. Prediction-market edge detection also fans out across bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk, so an agent can easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a predictable snake_case action-first pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, subscribe, unsubscribe) with helpful domain prefixes for polymarket_*, realestate_*, and pipeworx_*. Minor deviations exist—entity_profile is noun-first, ask_pipeworx lacks an underscore, and remember/forget/recall are bare verbs—but they do not create real confusion.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the coherence sweet spot and the rubric's 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by auxiliary platform utilities (feedback, trending, memory, subscriptions, llms.txt generation, npm scanning) that are unrelated to the Realestate name and make the tool surface feel like a full platform rather than a focused MCP server.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Realestate, the surface is only minimally complete: realestate_municipalities and realestate_transactions cover Japanese transaction lookups, but there are no tools for property listings, property details, pricing estimates, or typical real-estate workflows. Even viewed as a broad data platform, the set is read-heavy with no create/update/delete operations beyond memories and subscriptions, leaving significant workflow gaps.

Resources