Skip to main content
Glama

Unicode

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 adds crucial behavioral context: it details the two processing paths and explains the meaning of every verdict value. Critically, it distinguishes could_not_verify (pipeline failure, not evidence) from unsupported (no source found), which is essential for correct interpretation of results.

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 dense and informative, front-loaded with user-intent examples and clearly structured around pipeline, return values, and caller caveats. While it is longer than strictly necessary, every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, and the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' note is contextually useful.

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: verdict types, grounded/structured actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also addresses failure semantics and the verification_error payload, making it complete for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

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 of both parameters is 100%, providing full descriptions of claim and tolerance_pct, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—only referencing 'exact percent-delta math' and the tolerance override, which are already in the schema.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope by differentiating company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR from other claims via the grounded pipeline, and positions it as a replacement for multi-step 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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving clear invocation context. It also explains the internal routing by claim type, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, 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 Unicode 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly the same routing purpose, with the beta variant currently identical to the stable one, and deep_research also overlaps for broad research. However, most other tools have clearly distinct functions, and descriptions provide usage guidance, so ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, but patterns vary between verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes are used inconsistently across the set, and the server name 'Unicode' does not align with the tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server is overloaded for a focused purpose, especially since only three tools relate to Unicode despite the server name. Many Polymarket and Pipeworx tools could be consolidated, and the count exceeds the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The server name claims to be about Unicode, but only char_info, escape_string, and unescape_string cover that domain, missing common operations like normalization, case conversion, and encoding validation. For the broader data-access domain the surface is fairly complete, yet there is no tool to fetch a specific pipeworx:// citation URI, leaving cited records unfetchable within the tool set—an obvious gap relative to the stated capabilities.

Resources