Skip to main content
Glama

Wikipathways

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns a verdict (confirmed, approximate, refuted, etc.), provides a grounded or structured value with citation and reasoning, and explains special meanings for could_not_verify vs. unsupported. It also describes routing logic and error details, which significantly enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool does internally.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, starting with natural-language triggers and moving to usage guidance, routing logic, return values, and important edge cases. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the structure is logical for a tool with this level of complexity. No filler or redundancy.

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 all essential aspects: the purpose, target claims, routing between two pipelines, verdict types, citation format, reasoning, and the precise meaning of edge-case results (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). Given the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description fully compensates and leaves no critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how tolerance_pct works in relation to claim wording (default capped at 5) and how it affects verdict grading, which is not fully evident from the schema alone. It also gives concrete claim examples that illustrate the expected input format.

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. It includes specific trigger phrases ("Is it true that…") and distinguishes between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR fast path) and other claims (grounded pipeline), making the tool's scope unambiguous and setting it apart from sibling tools like deep_research or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 tells callers when to use the tool: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also differentiates between the structured path for company-financial claims and the grounded path for any other claim, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving clear context on when it is the right choice.

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

All Wikipathways 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is severely mismatched: only 3 of 34 tools (get_pathway, list_pathways, search_pathways) relate to WikiPathways while the rest form overlapping Pipeworx/Polymarket families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* tools) with unclear boundaries and overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: product-specific names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), generic memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), and mixed snake_case patterns with no unifying verb_noun structure. The names do not reflect the WikiPathways domain at all.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is far too many for a WikiPathways server, which only needs a handful of pathway-related operations. Nearly all tools belong to unrelated domains (SEC, FDA, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

For the stated WikiPathways purpose, only get, list, and search are present—no create, update, or delete operations—leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-WikiPathways tools do not contribute to the server's apparent domain coverage and create dead ends for agents expecting pathway management.

Resources