Skip to main content
Glama

uselessfacts

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals substantial behavior: the dual-pipeline architecture, exact percent-delta math for financial claims, and the nuanced meaning of each verdict type including unsupported vs. could_not_verify. It also explains the error object and why callers must not interpret could_not_verify as a refutation—context not derivable from annotations.

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?

Despite being lengthy, every sentence earns its place: example queries, routing logic, return structure, caller warning, and efficiency rationale. The description front-loads the core purpose with examples and uses a clear progression from usage to behavior to return semantics, making it dense 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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully compensates by specifying exactly what the tool returns (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and explaining the two 'non-answer' verdicts. It covers when to use, how it behaves, parameter nuances, and failure modes—complete for a 2-parameter tool.

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?

Even though the schema already fully documents both parameters, the description adds real semantic value: it explains that tolerance_pct overrides claim wording, recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection, and notes the default cap of 5. The claim parameter is given realistic examples that clarify expected format far beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with concrete example phrasings. It clearly distinguishes the two processing paths (structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all others) and lists the verdict types, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like deep_research or ask_pipeworx.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides detailed routing rules for financial vs. non-financial claims and warns that 'could_not_verify' must not be treated as evidence—critical guidance for correct use.

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

All uselessfacts 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx for general queries, ask_pipeworx_grounded for high-stakes verification, deep_research for multi-faceted research). However, some overlap exists among the ask_* variants and the prediction-market tools (bet_research vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_arbitrage), which could cause misselection without careful reading of the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and mostly follow the verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Minor deviations like random_fact and today_fact (adjective_noun) and pipeworx_feedback (noun_noun) introduce slight inconsistency, but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3-15 range and even the 16-25 'heavy' threshold. While the server covers an unusually broad domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the six polymarket tools, trivial random_fact/today_fact). The scope partially justifies the count, but it feels over-provisioned.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for a data platform: it covers querying, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, memory persistence, subscription management, validation, and even meta-tool discovery. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit update/delete for external data, but that is not the service's purpose). Overall, no obvious dead ends.

Resources