Skip to main content
Glama

Acled

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral detail: it explains failure modes with verification_error, warns that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence, and clarifies unsupported means no source. It also describes the internal routing (structured vs grounded) and return semantics, which the annotations do not cover.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries useful information, especially the critical warning about could_not_verify. It is slightly dense and could be split into shorter sentences, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers return values (verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning), failure modes, unsupported semantics, and the internal pipeline. No output schema exists, so this description carries full responsibility for return-value clarity—and it delivers.

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%, but the description enriches the tolerance_pct parameter by explaining the default behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5) and practical usage for hallucination detection (set 1–2). It also gives an example for the claim parameter. This adds value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a specific verb (validate/verify) and resource (claims). It includes multiple trigger phrases and explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

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 provides strong usage context: it specifies when to use the tool (fact-checking user statements) and even differentiates between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR path) and other claims (grounded pipeline). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over general Q&A or research tools.

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

All Acled 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all serve similar data retrieval needs. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap in providing company information. Polymarket tools also have overlapping analysis functions. This can cause confusion for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent in style and convention. Some use underscores (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single words (forget, recall), and many lack a clear verb_noun pattern (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges). This mixture of naming conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad scope covering multiple domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, ACLED events, npm scanning, memory, etc.). However, some areas have only one or two tools, which feels sparse, and the overall set could be trimmed or better organized.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For ACLED, only search and count tools exist without any update/delete capabilities. For Pipeworx, the tools are heavily read-focused with no apparent write operations. The broad scope makes completeness hard to assess, but some obvious lifecycle operations are missing.

Resources