Skip to main content
Glama

Bright Data

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses critical edge-case semantics: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and is neutral, while unsupported means no source was found. It also explains the two distinct processing paths (financial vs. general), adding significant 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: usage examples, explicit when-to-use, technical routing details, return value explanation, and a crucial caller warning. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the most actionable information.

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 the return values including verdict types, grounded/structured values with citations, and reasoning. It also covers error states (could_not_verify, unsupported) and the distinction between them, which is essential for correct caller behavior.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct. The description adds context about the verdict scale and percent-delta math, but this is complementary rather than essential. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding substantial new parameter-level detail.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with exact verbs like 'verify' and 'check'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on claim verification and by stating it replaces multiple sequential calls, which clearly separates it from generic search or research 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.' It also provides guidance on routing between SEC financial data and the grounded pipeline. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Bright Data 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
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) has significant boundary overlap, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also cover heavily overlapping prediction-market territory, so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, scan_dependency). Minor deviations exist — entity_profile is noun-noun, brightdata_serp/brightdata_unlock use a vendor prefix, and remember/recall/forget are bare verbs — but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold that signals an over-heavy surface. While the server covers multiple domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), many of those domains carry redundant variants that could be consolidated, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflows well: querying (ask_pipeworx variants), deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, discovery/onboarding, subscriptions (list/subscribe/unsubscribe), memory (remember/recall/forget), and feedback. Minor gaps exist — there is no direct tool to fetch a returned pipeworx:// citation URI, and memory lacks an explicit update operation — but agents can work around these.

Resources