Skip to main content
Glama

Senate Lobbying

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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen, must not be used as evidence) and unsupported (no source found), the return verdict types, and the fallback to a grounded pipeline. This significantly helps the caller interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage examples, then provides necessary details on routing, return values, and error semantics. It is somewhat long, but each sentence contributes unique information and is structured logically.

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 the return value structure (verdict types, value with citation, reasoning) and the special meanings of could_not_verify and unsupported. It also covers routing and performance benefits, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% for both parameters, including detailed meaning for tolerance_pct (e.g., default capped at 5, hallucination detection guidance). The tool description itself does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score 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 opens with explicit example phrasings and clearly states the tool is for natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It also defines its scope ("Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct") and distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its dual fast/grounded paths and the fact it replaces multiple sequential calls.

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 when-to-use directive and explains routing for two claim types (company-financial vs. other). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough to select this tool for fact-checking tasks.

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

All Senate Lobbying 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

There are several near-duplicate clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly described as currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data; the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) heavily overlap in purpose and are easy to confuse. Even detailed descriptions do not fully resolve which tool an agent should pick first.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes, resolve_entity), but there is a mix of verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and brand-prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The naming is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

A server named 'Senate Lobbying' exposes 34 tools, but only three (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes) relate to LDA lobbying data. The remaining 31 cover generic Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm package audits—an extreme overreach for the apparent scope and likely to confuse an agent expecting a focused lobbying toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For the lobbying domain implied by the server name, only search, get-one-filing, and issue-code enumeration exist; there is no aggregation/stats tool, no lobbyist/client entity resolution for LDA, no registrant or foreign-entity browsing, and no coverage of related concepts like lobbying firm hierarchies or spending trends. The generic Pipeworx tools fill a different domain, so the lobbying-specific surface has significant gaps.

Resources