Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Regulations

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already signal safe read-only behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the dual-path routing (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs grounded pipeline), the exact verdict set, and the critical distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, carries verification_error) and unsupported (no source covers it). This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and example queries, then logically covers routing, return values, failure semantics, and efficiency. Every sentence contributes unique value—there is no filler or redundancy. Despite being longer than average, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and it is well structured for skimming.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure: the enumerated verdicts, the grounded/structured value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also covers important error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and the performance benefit of replacing multiple calls. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

Both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) have complete descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), including examples, ranges, and defaults. The description itself does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific example phrasings like 'Is it true that…' and 'fact check'. It explicitly states the resource (claims) and action (validate/verify), and differentiates itself from other tools by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls and has a dedicated SEC EDGAR/XBRL path for financial 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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing for company-financial claims vs any other factual claim, which clarifies scope. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it is not a 5.

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

All Sec Regulations 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 have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both scan for betting opportunities, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but an agent must read carefully to distinguish the meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) from each other.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first or domain-prefixed noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, sec_regulations_search, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, and sec_regulation vs sec_regulations_search is slightly inconsistent, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', and most are unrelated to the server's stated name 'Sec Regulations'—only sec_regulation and sec_regulations_search fit that label. While each tool has a defined purpose, the set feels like several distinct servers (research, betting, memory, subscriptions) crammed into one.

Completeness3/5

For a general data-research platform, the surface is broad: Q&A routers, entity resolution/profiles, comparisons, validation, memory, subscriptions, and domain-specific tools. But the SEC-regulation focus implied by the server name is severely under-served, and there's no direct tool to fetch a raw document by citation/URI outside of the ask_pipeworx router. The Polymarket cluster is over-built relative to other data domains.

Resources