Skip to main content
Glama

Bls

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the internal routing (SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the return verdicts, and critically the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) and 'unsupported' (no source found). This prevents misinterpreting a failed check as evidence, which is essential behavioral context.

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 dense but well-organized, leading with trigger phrases, then use case, then pipeline details, then return values and caveats. Every sentence carries meaning, though the long sentences with viele dashes might be slightly harder to parse. Still, it earns high marks for efficiency.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (verdicts, actual value, reasoning) and clarifies ambiguous outcomes. It covers the major execution paths and the important 'could_not_verify' pitfall. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 already fully documents both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does mention 'exact percent-delta math' but that is about internal computation, not parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification, with specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on factual claims against authoritative sources, and even breaks down the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline).

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' and explains the automatic routing for financial vs. other claims. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't mention specific exclusions or alternatives, the scope is comprehensive and unambiguous.

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

All Bls 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools understandably fall into distinct clusters (BLS data, Polymarket, entity research, memory, subscriptions) and have detailed descriptions, but there is real overlap among the query entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and validate_claim can all answer similar factual questions. The descriptions help an agent choose, but the set still contains more than a couple of near-duplicate paths.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and several clusters share domain prefixes like bls_, polymarket_, and pipeworx_, which keeps the surface readable. However, the semantic naming pattern is mixed: verb+noun names like resolve_entity and list_subscriptions coexist with noun phrases like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and bls_latest, plus brand-led names like ask_pipeworx and polymarket_edges.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the set is well past the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool surface, and several tools inflate the count: duplicate ask_pipeworx variants, multiple overlapping Polymarket scanners, and one-off meta helpers. The broad Pipeworx scope explains some of the breadth, but the redundancy makes the set feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers its core workflows well: data lookup, grounded verification, entity profiling and comparison, BLS series access, Polymarket research, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. Minor gaps remain, such as no subscription-editing tool, no dedicated citation-reader tool, and no general web-search tool, but ask_pipeworx acts as a catch-all router that lets agents work around most of them.

Resources