Skip to main content
Glama

Datalastic

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already indicating read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial context: the two distinct execution paths, the full list of verdicts, the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported, and the return payload with citation and reasoning. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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 compact yet information-dense, with a logical flow: purpose, trigger phrases, usage, internal routing, output format, and critical caller notes. Every sentence adds value, and important caveats are marked with 'IMPORTANT for callers.'

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: input, behavior, output, error semantics, and comparison with alternatives. Even without an output schema, it clearly enumerates the verdict types and the contents of the return value. It is fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description enriches both parameters: claim is explained as natural-language with concrete examples, and tolerance_pct is detailed with range, override behavior, and use-case guidance (e.g., set 1–2 for hallucination detection). This goes well beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx or deep_research by explicitly defining the fact-checking use case and the unique two-path pipeline (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise).

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 concrete behavioral guidance by distinguishing could_not_verify from unsupported, and notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying when to prefer it over chaining other tools.

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

All Datalastic 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 clusters have genuinely fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grouned, and deep_research all route to the same 5,767 tools and differ only by use-case nuance, while polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all surface trading opportunities. scan_competitor_ai_presence is a thin wrapper over ai_visibility_check, and entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities pull overlapping company data. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily select the wrong tool in these clusters.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and family prefixes are consistent (polymarket_*, pipeworx, datalastic_*, scan_*, ask_*), making the set predictable and readable. The main deviation is verb placement — verb-first (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, search_within) vs noun-first (entiy_profile, recent_alerts, bet_research) — and prefix position varies between ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback, but these are minor.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the heavy threshold, and the count is padded by redundancy: four ask_pipeworx variants that are near-identical, six polymarket tools with overlapping scans, and wrapper tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence that just call ai_visibility_check. The server name suggests maritime focus but only two tools serve that domain, while the rest span a sprawling data-research, prediction-market, AI-visibility, and npm-scanning surface. Consolidating the ask_pipeworx family into one router with a mode parameter and merging wrappers would trim the set to roughly 20 tools without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research lifecycle is thoroughly covered: resolve_entity feeds entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim, and deep_research, and the prediction-market workflow includes discovery, edge detection, fill-risk validation, and cross-venue analysis. Subscriptions, memory, and feedback are well supported. Minor gaps exist — the datalastic maritime piece has only live position lookups (no history or fleet tools), and one-offs like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel unrelated — but there are no critical dead ends.

Resources