Skip to main content
Glama

Realestateapi

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it details the return value categories (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), explains the exact meaning of non-obvious verdicts (could_not_verify vs. unsupported), and warns callers that could_not_verify carries a verification_error and must not be shown as evidence. It also mentions the automatic fall-through routing and tolerance override behavior, which are genuinely useful operational traits not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 information-dense; every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence. The later verdict definitions and caller warnings are necessary for correct invocation and interpretation, though they add length. It is not as tight as a two-sentence example, but the density justifies the size.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It fully covers verdict semantics, error handling, citation format, and the routing logic, making the description self-sufficient for an agent to select, invoke, and interpret results. The 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls' note also completes the efficiency context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining how tolerance_pct interacts with the claim wording ('Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording') and prescribing concrete values for hallucination detection ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'). It also provides an example of claim format and clarifies the default cap of 5, which helps the agent populate the parameter correctly.

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 opens with concrete natural-language query phrasings and explicitly states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources,' which precisely identifies the tool's verb (verify), resource (claims), and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting the structured SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims versus the grounded pipeline for any other factual claim, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and provides strong exclusion/alternative context by naming the two distinct pipelines (company-financial vs. other factual claims). It also explains that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, effectively conveying when it is the efficient choice over composing multiple operations, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives directly.

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

All Realestateapi 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping research/lookup purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both verify claims against sources, and six polymarket_* tools overlap on edge/arbitrage detection. The three realestateapi_* tools are distinct but sit awkwardly beside 31 unrelated tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case prefixed tools (realestateapi_property_search), domain-prefixed tools (polymarket_edges), verb-noun tools (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx platform rather than the Realestateapi identity — only 3 of 34 tools are real-estate specific. The count is not well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a real estate API the surface is severely thin: search, detail, and skip-trace only, with no market trends, tax history, rental estimates, or comparable-sales data. For the Pipeworx meta-domain the coverage is broader, but the server presents as Realestateapi, making the domain coverage a mismatch.

Resources