Skip to main content
Glama

Tax Regulations

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?

The description goes well beyond annotations by clarifying the meaning of nuanced verdicts like could_not_verify and unsupported, and warns that could_not_verify is not evidence and must not be shown as one. It also explains the tool consolidates multiple calls, adding valuable behavioral context not captured in readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 dense with useful detail; every section serves a purpose (examples, behavior, special cases, consolidation benefit). It is not perfectly front-loaded, and some phrases could be tightened, but overall it is well-organized for a tool with 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?

The description covers return values (verdict list, citation, reasoning), explains special verdict states and their handling, and mentions the tool's ability to replace multiple calls. Given there is no output schema, this level of detail fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already thoroughly documents both `claim` and `tolerance_pct`. The description adds minor context (e.g., default tolerance capped at 5, use 1-2 for hallucination detection) but largely restates the schema, so baseline 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 example query phrases and clearly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It explicitly distinguishes the tool's scope (financial vs. non-financial claims) and notes it replaces multiple sequential steps, setting it apart from sibling research and search tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the two distinct paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and warns about could_not_verify semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Tax Regulations 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools. The two tax-specific tools are distinct, but the sheer number of generic data-access tools makes it difficult for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of snake_case (ask_pipeworx, tax_search), camelCase (ask_pipeworx_beta, compare_entities, discover_tools), and inconsistent verb styles (resolve_entity vs entity_profile vs scan_competitor_ai_presence). No clear pattern is discernible.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Tax Regulations' but only 2 of 33 tools are tax-related. The other 31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx data-access, memory, subscription, and Polymarket tools, making the count wildly excessive and mismatched with the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the tax regulation domain, tax_search and tax_regulation cover keyword discovery and full-text retrieval, which is a functional core. However, the set lacks any other tax-specific operations (e.g., updates, comparisons, planning), and the majority of the tool surface is irrelevant to the stated server purpose, leaving notable gaps for an agent expecting a coherent tax toolset.

Resources