Skip to main content
Glama

Scb Se

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the bar is lower, but the description adds rich behavioral context: the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline), exact percent-delta math, verdict categories, citation behavior, and a critical warning about could_not_verify being neutral. This exceeds what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than minimal, but every section earns its place: trigger phrases, main purpose, use case, pipeline breakdown, return values, and an important error-semantics warning. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff.

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 (verdict set, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It covers the key behaviors and caveats a caller needs, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond mentioning 'exact percent-delta math,' which indirectly relates to tolerance_pct but doesn't explain the parameter syntactically. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification with specific trigger phrases, a specific verb ('validate claim'), and a clear resource ('against authoritative sources'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and handles both structured financial claims and arbitrary factual claims.

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.' This is clear context for when to use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative sibling tools. Lacks the when-not/alternatives nuance for a 5.

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

All Scb Se 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but several overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (only differing in verification/depth), and polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edge_tracker / polymarket_fill_risk / polymarket_kalshi_spread all target similar prediction-market signals, which could cause mis-selection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, query_table, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, validate_claim, compare_entities, search_within), but there are exceptions like ai_visibility_check (adjective_noun), generate_llms_txt (verb_noun with dot), and several polymarket_* names that are fine but inconsistent with the snake_case verb-first convention.

Tool Count5/5

35 tools is a large but reasonable surface for a broad data/serach platform covering company financials, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and discovery. The count is justified by the wide domain, and the set is not bloated with trivial duplicates.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core CRUD for entities (resolve, profile, compare, search, query) and memory (remember/recall/forget), plus subscriptions and meta-tools. Minor gaps: no explicit tool for updating/creating entities (understandable for a read-only data service), and no tool for listing all available table schemas beyond discovery (subjects covers this). Overall strong coverage.

Resources