Skip to main content
Glama

Abs Au

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: that 'could_not_verify' means the check never happened and must not be treated as evidence, while 'unsupported' means no source covers it. It also reveals internal mechanics (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback) and explicitly warns callers about error handling.

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 every sentence serves a purpose: usage triggers, routing logic, return values, error semantics, and efficiency gains. It is front-loaded with user-phrase examples and maintains a clear structure despite its length.

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 what the tool returns: verdict categories, actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also covers edge cases (could_not_verify vs. unsupported) and integration notes (replaces multiple sequential calls), making it complete for an AI agent to invoke and interpret results reliably.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable context: it provides concrete example claims, explains how tolerance_pct overrides implied wording, and suggests values (1–2) for hallucination detection. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions, though the schema itself is already quite clear.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself by listing natural-language triggers and stating it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, making its purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further differentiates two routing paths (company-financial vs. any other factual claim), giving clear guidance on when this tool applies versus needing a fallback pipeline.

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

All Abs Au 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but subtle overlap exists in the ask_pipeworx variants and multiple Polymarket-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread) which could cause misselection without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun or noun_verb structures, e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, resolve_entity. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With 29 tools, the server exceeds the typical ideal range of 3-15 and enters the 'too many' category. While each tool serves a specific purpose, the breadth of functionality could likely be streamlined or consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of domains—company research, fact verification, data querying, betting analysis, memory, and subscription management. However, some specialized queries rely on the generic ask_pipeworx tool rather than dedicated endpoints, leaving minor gaps for direct access.

Resources