Skip to main content
Glama

Destatis

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 provide safety hints (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds crucial semantic distinctions: the meaning of could_not_verify vs unsupported, that could_not_verify is not evidence, and the two-path execution strategy with exact percent-delta math. This exceeds the minimal bar for annotation-complementing disclosure.

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-organized: trigger phrases first, then scope, then internal behavior, then return values, then edge-case warnings, then efficiency note. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity, with no redundant sentences.

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?

The tool has two routing paths, multiple verdicts, and no output schema. The description covers inputs, when to use, both execution paths, the full verdict set, citation behavior, and the critical semantic difference between two verdicts, plus a performance note. It is comprehensive for a tool this complex.

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 documents both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about routing and tolerance math but doesn't add specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It includes trigger phrases and distinguishes the SEC EDGAR fast path for company financial claims versus the grounded pipeline for all other facts, clearly separating it from general Q&A siblings.

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?

States 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the automatic routing between two pipelines. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the scope is clear enough to prevent confusion with ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

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

All Destatis 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

The ask_pipeworx family—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded—plus deep_research all describe the same router under slightly different modes, and the six polymarket tools overlap heavily around edge detection and arbitrage. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are also near-duplicates, so agents will frequently have to choose between tools that appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and several families share prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_, destatis_), which helps discoverability. However the pattern is not consistent: bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), adjective_noun phrases (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and noun_noun names (entity_profile, bet_research) are all mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the surface is well past the 25+ threshold and mixes unrelated concerns: Destatis statistics, a general data router, prediction-market analytics, memory, and AI-marketing scans. The count could be justified if split into separate servers, but as one set it feels over-stuffed.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-retrieval/research purpose the descriptions reveal, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, validation, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, subscriptions, memory, and Destatis search/table are all present. The only notable weakness is that the Destatis-specific surface is just search-and-fetch, which is thin for a server literally named Destatis, but this is offset by the general router.

Resources