Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nl

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the description adds substantial value: it details the two verification methods, the exact meaning of each verdict, the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, and the presence of a pipeworx:// citation. The warning about could_not_verify not being evidence is crucial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: example triggers, purpose, pathway explanation, return values, and a callout for a critical semantic trap (could_not_verify). Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 return semantics (verdict list, actual value, citation, reasoning, error payload). It also covers the two operational modes and the important behavioral caveat about unsupported vs could_not_verify. Complexity is high, but the description leaves no critical gap for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both claim and tolerance_pct have good descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it only conceptually frames the claim as natural-language, which is already implied in the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 natural-language query examples, then states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' — a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking with a verdict, explicitly listing the verdict set, and noting it replaces a multi-step pipeline.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and differentiates the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else). It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' or named alternative tools, but the scope is clear enough.

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

All Data Nl 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (the beta is currently identical), and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in prediction-market analysis. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also serve the same core function. An agent would frequently need to read lengthy descriptions to pick the right one, and could easily misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case pattern, but the style is mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, search_datasets, resolve_entity), some are domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback), and a few are bare nouns or adjective-noun phrases (dataset, entity_profile, recent_alerts). It is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this is above the 25+ threshold considered too many for a coherent toolset. The count is inflated by near-duplicate families (three ask_pipeworx variants, six polymarket tools) that could reasonably be consolidated. While the server covers a broad domain, the number of top-level choices creates unnecessary selection burden for agents.

Completeness4/5

For a read-focused data/research gateway, the surface is quite complete: general lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, change tracking, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch-by-URI tool for the pipeworx:// citations that other tools return, and the Dutch open-data tools are strictly read-only. These are workarounds rather than dead ends.

Resources