Skip to main content
Glama

Stat Ee

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond by disclosing the internal two-path mechanism, the possible verdicts, the special meaning of could_not_verify (not evidence) versus unsupported, and the pipeworx:// citation format. It does not contradict any annotation; it enriches the behavioral contract.

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 longer than average but each section earns its place: example phrasings, explicit usage criterion, path routing, verdict list, and a critical caller-facing caveat. It is well-structured with a clear flow and front-loaded with natural-language triggers. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses all relevant return semantics: verdict vocabulary, actual value with citation, reasoning, and explicit handling of failure modes (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It covers when and how to invoke, what to expect, and how to interpret edge cases, 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, with detailed descriptions and examples. The description reinforces the tolerance override context (e.g., "set 1–2 for hallucination detection") but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the explanatory load.

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 precisely states the tool verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with specific verb phrases like "fact check" and "verify the claim that". It clearly distinguishes from likely sibling tools by framing it as a single-call replacement for NL parsing, entity resolution, lookup, and comparison, which separates it from generic ask tools and research tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also provides clear routing guidance: company-financial claims take the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path, while all other claims fall through to the grounded pipeline. The "IMPORTANT for callers" note about could_not_verify vs unsupported adds critical usage semantics.

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

All Stat Ee 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have fairly distinct action/resource targets and the descriptions carefully separate entry points like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical clone of ask_pipeworx right now, and a few related pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, stat_ee_find_table fetch_latest vs estonia_average_wage) add ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and verb-led names like resolve_entity, query_table, and suggest_questions are clear. But the set mixes conventions: bare nouns (subjects, recall, forget), adjective-noun phrases (recent_alerts, recent_changes), no-verb names (estonia_average_wage, table_meta), and multiple prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, stat_ee_*). It is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 15-tool threshold for a well-scoped server, and the set spans many unrelated domains: Estonian statistics, Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, npm scanning, memory, and subscriptions. There is also clear redundancy (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check could be folded into scan_competitor_ai_presence). This feels scattered for a server named 'Stat Ee'.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-research/agent-assistant purpose, key workflows are well covered: discovery/query/grounded/deep research, entity resolution/profile/compare/validate/recent changes, complete memory CRUD, subscription CRUD with alert feeds, and a full Polymarket edge/arb/fill-risk suite. The main gap is not missing operations within these workflows but rather the overall scope being too broad and unfocused.

Resources