Skip to main content
Glama

Datos Co

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate a read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the two routing paths, the verdict set, the 'exact percent-delta math', the `verification_error` on `could_not_verify`, and the explicit distinction between `could_not_verify` (check did not happen) and `unsupported` (no source found). No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense: it front-loads natural-language query examples, states the core purpose, explains routing, summarizes output, and gives critical caller warnings. Each sentence contributes a distinct, useful fact. A bit verbose, but appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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 enumerates the possible verdicts (`confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify`), the return fields (actual value, citation, reasoning), and the error semantics. It also explains routing and efficiency gains, making the tool self-sufficient 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.

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), including the `tolerance_pct` range and default behavior. The tool description reinforces claim examples and explains output verdicts that depend on the claim, but it doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a set of natural-language triggers and then states a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly focuses on fact-checking and distinguishes itself from sibling research/ask tools by describing the structured SEC EDGAR path for financial claims and the grounded pipeline for others, as well as replacing 4–6 sequential calls.

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?

It explicitly instructs: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further details when the financial fast path applies vs. the generic grounded pipeline, and warns about the meaning of `could_not_verify`. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not scenarios, so it's just 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 Datos Co 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several natural-language query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) occupy overlapping territory, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also has fuzzy boundaries, though the long descriptions help an agent differentiate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase with underscores, and there are coherent subfamilies like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and scan_*. However, the overall set mixes conventions: verb_noun (query_dataset, resolve_entity), noun_noun (entity_profile, bet_research), adjective_noun (recent_changes), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), so no single predictable pattern governs the server.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a heavy surface for one server, including multiple meta/onboarding utilities (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) and a large prediction-market subcluster. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold where a tool set typically becomes unwieldy, and several tools could be consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

For a read-heavy data research platform, the surface is very complete: discovery, routed lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, dataset querying, prediction-market research, and full memory/subscription lifecycles are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit pipeworx:// URI read tool and no subscription update operation, but agents can work around them.

Resources