Skip to main content
Glama

Data Lv

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by clarifying the meaning of each verdict, especially the crucial distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, includes verification_error{stage,detail}) and unsupported (no source exists). It also warns callers not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context agents need.

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 long but densely informative. It is front-loaded with examples and a clear usage statement, then covers the two paths, return values, and an IMPORTANT caller note. Every sentence adds value; however, the length and multiple clauses make it slightly less scannable than ideal. Given the tool's complexity, this is well-justified.

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 covers the return contract: verdict options, the actual value with citation, reasoning, and the error semantics for could_not_verify. It also explains the internal routing logic, which is essential for an agent to set expectations. The tool has only two parameters, both documented, and the description fairly explains all relevant behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds meaningful detail: tolerance_pct overrides the wording-implied tolerance, suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection, and documents the default as implied by wording capped at 5. This goes beyond the raw schema and helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 opens with explicit trigger phrases ("Is it true that…"/"fact check") and states the core action: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a consolidated single-call tool that replaces 4–6 sequential steps, and the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for other claims) make its scope unambiguous.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides decision-relevant nuance: company-financial claims take the structured fast path, while any other factual claim automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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

All Data Lv 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: data lookup (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, memory, monitoring, and prediction market analysis. Overlaps are minimal and mitigated by explicit usage guidance (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded vs. deep_research).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use descriptive snake_case names following a verb_noun or verb_preposition pattern (e.g., entity_profile, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). The naming is predictable and internally consistent, making it easy for an agent to infer tool purposes.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high end for typical MCP servers. However, the server covers an exceptionally broad domain (structured data across SEC, FDA, FRED, weather, news, crypto, etc.) and includes meta-tools, monitoring, and memory. The count is justified but may feel excessive for many use cases.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data access and analysis: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), comparison, claim validation, monitoring, memory, and feedback. There are no obvious gaps for the declared domain, and a feedback tool is provided for missing functionality.

Resources