Skip to main content
Glama

Semanticscholar

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description adds crucial context: the dual-pipeline routing (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded), the specific verdict list, and the critical caveat that 'could_not_verify' means the check didn't happen and must not be treated as evidence. This discloses behavior that annotations cannot convey.

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 well-structured: it opens with usage triggers, then explains routing, output, and important caveats. Every sentence carries information, and the front-loading of 'use whenever' makes the primary purpose immediately clear. It could be trimmed slightly but earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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 takes on the burden of explaining return values. It enumerates all verdicts, states what is returned (actual value, citation, reasoning), and elaborates on ambiguous verdicts ('could_not_verify', 'unsupported'). It also covers the routing logic and prerequisites, making the tool fully understandable for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning; it only restates that claims are natural-language factual statements, while the schema already provides detailed examples and tolerance_pct semantics. No extra value is added on top of the schema.

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 job: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit example phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'). It differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on factual correctness checks and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its niche obvious.

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 to use this tool whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness of a user's statement. It explains routing for company-financial vs. other claims, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Semanticscholar 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, especially the core ones like get_paper, search_papers, and entity_profile. However, some pairs like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, or the polymarket tools, could cause momentary confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent: tools use verb_noun (e.g., get_paper), noun_phrase (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage), and bare verbs (e.g., forget, recall). There is no unifying pattern, and styles like 'pipeworx_feedback' vs 'search_papers' further add to the inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the set covers a broad range of domains (academic papers, company data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). While the scope justifies the number, it feels slightly heavy and could benefit from consolidation or clearer grouping.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major functionalities for research, data retrieval, and monitoring, with only minor gaps (e.g., limited to US public companies, npm-only dependency scanning). Overall, the surface is comprehensive for the stated capabilities.

Resources