Skip to main content
Glama

stackexchange

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Provides rich behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotations: details two processing paths, defines each possible verdict, and clarifies that 'could_not_verify' does not count as evidence either way. This is exactly the kind of guidance that prevents an agent from misusing the tool.

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 long but every sentence conveys essential information: examples lead, then use cases and behavior, then error semantics and performance benefits. It is well-structured and free of redundancy, making it appropriate for a tool of this 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 thoroughly covers what the tool returns (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), distinguishes error and unsupported outcomes, and explains the internal routing and the efficiency benefit. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is complete (100%), but the description adds meaningful semantics, especially for tolerance_pct, explaining its role in overriding inferred tolerances and offering a concrete recommendation (1–2 for hallucination detection). This goes beyond the basic schema description.

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's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with numerous example phrasings ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from general Q&A tools by focusing on verifying factual claims and returning a verdict.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and provides conditional logic for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state 'when not to use', so it falls short of a 5.

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

All stackexchange 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

The StackExchange tools are distinct, but the dominating data-lookup cluster is highly ambiguous: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route into the same underlying tool catalog. The polymorpharket tools also overlap heavily, making selection between bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and fill-risk checks genuinely hard.

Naming Consistency2/5

The names are all snake_case but otherwise follow no consistent pattern: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, stack_get_user), composite domain names (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and generic verbs (resolve_entity, validate_claim, search_within). The StackExchange subset itself is split between stack_get_user/stack_tags and search_questions/get_answers.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already in the 'too many' range for one server, and the mismatch with the server name is severe: only 5 of 36 tools relate to StackExchange. The rest form a broad Pipeworx/prediction-market data platform that would itself be oversized for a focused purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a StackExchange-focused server, the surface has core read operations but lacks question-detail-by-ID, comments, related questions, or any write/community actions, and the 31 unrelated tools do not fill that gap. For the broader apparent Pipeworx platform coverage is broad, but the set has no single coherent domain against which completeness can be meaningfully judged.

Resources