Skip to main content
Glama

Bis

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral details: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (verification error, not evidence), 'unsupported' (no source found), and the fast path vs fallback differences. It also mentions exact percent-delta math and verbatim evidence, significantly enriching transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a dense, well-front-loaded paragraph (~200 words) packed with purpose, routing logic, return payload, and a critical caller warning. It avoids filler and every sentence earns its place. It loses one point for being an unstructured wall of text; breaking it into bullet points for the verdict list and routing paths would improve scannability.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning), the two special statuses (could_not_verify, unsupported), and the efficiency benefit of replacing multiple calls. It also mentions the SEC EDGAR fast path and grounded pipeline fallback, giving enough context for correct invocation. Minor vagueness about 'grounded pipeline' is acceptable given sibling context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not restate tolerance_pct or its usage. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides comprehensive parameter meaning.

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 verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, provides example query forms ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check'), and distinguishes between financial and non-financial claims. It specifies a concrete action (verify) on a clear resource (claims), and the mention of SEC EDGAR and grounded pipeline separates it from generic search tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving clear context. It also explains the two routing paths (company-financial vs any other factual claim) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it is the consolidated alternative. It does not list explicit when-not-to-use cases (e.g., subjective questions), which prevents a perfect score.

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

All Bis 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have carefully written distinctions, but several overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx versus ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and ask_pipeworx, deep_research, validate_claim, and the Polymarket research tools all sit on the same factual-question axis. The long descriptions help an agent choose, but the set still has multiple ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly readable, with clear prefix families like pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and ask_pipeworx*. However, the verb-noun pattern is inconsistent: many tools are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges) and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), so the naming is not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an organic platform dump rather than a curated server. The broad data-platform scope partly justifies the number, but the presence of near-duplicate entry points and one-off utilities (generate_llms_txt, ai_visibility_check, scan_dependency) makes the set feel bloated rather than cohesive.

Completeness4/5

For a read-heavy data/research platform the surface is unusually complete: discovery, single-lookup, grounded-answer, deep-research, entity resolution, comparison, change-tracking, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. Missing write/execution capabilities like placing trades or modifying BIS flows are reasonable absences for this kind of server; the main gap is a dedicated historical/trend utility beyond the general router.

Resources