Skip to main content
Glama

String Db

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?

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the verdict types, the distinct meaning of 'could_not_verify' vs. 'unsupported', and the warning that 'could_not_verify' must not be treated as evidence. It also reveals the dual-pipeline routing (structured SEC XBRL vs. grounded pipeline). These details add real context not available from annotations alone.

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 moderately long but well-structured: it opens with example phrasings, then states purpose and usage, explains internal routing, lists return values, and includes an important caveat in a clear 'IMPORTANT' callout. Each sentence earns its place, though a few examples could be trimmed. It remains readable and scannable for a complex tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It thoroughly covers the verdict enum, the actual value with citation, reasoning, and the verification_error field. It also explains edge-case semantics (could_not_verify vs. unsupported) and the two pipeline paths, making the description complete for the tool's 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?

The input schema already provides full 100% coverage for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct', including examples and the behavior of tolerance_pct. The tool description references 'exact percent-delta math' but does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Given the high schema coverage, 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 states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit verb 'fact check' and 'verify'. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on true/false judgment and returns a verdict. The examples ('Is it true that...', 'fact check') make the intent unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the internal routing for financial vs. other claims, and mentions it replaces multiple sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops 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 String Db 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route to the same underlying data catalog. The six polymarket_* tools also blur together (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread), and resolve vs resolve_entity is an outright collision an agent will likely misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

There is a solid verb_noun core (list_subscriptions, scan_dependency, validate_claim, suggest_questions, compare_entities) but it is mixed with bare nouns (enrichment, homology, interactions, network) and product-prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx). No single consistent pattern holds across the set, though the clusters are internally predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and the sprawl is not justified by a single coherent domain—prediction markets, bioinformatics, brand visibility, npm scanning, and subscription management are jammed together. The count makes the tool surface hard to navigate even with good descriptions.

Completeness4/5

Within each major cluster the lifecycle feels covered: memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), STRING-DB (resolve/homology/interactions/network/enrichment), and Polymarket analysis (scan/edge/arb/fill-risk/track) all form reasonably complete workflows. The main gap is that the server attempts so many domains that none is exhaustively deep, but there are no critical dead ends.

Resources