Skip to main content
Glama

Eia

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. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds high-value behavioral context: the meaning of each verdict, especially that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence for/against the claim, and that 'unsupported' means no source exists. It also details the routing logic and that claims are answered with verbatim evidence before being judged. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is substantial but every sentence serves a purpose: trigger patterns, core function, path distinction, return values, caller-critical caveats, and efficiency rationale. It is front-loaded with user-intent phrases and immediately states the core purpose. Despite length, there is no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating verdict values, the citation-bearing value, and reasoning. It covers the two distinct operational modes, error semantics (could_not_verify with verification_error{stage,detail}), and the meaning of unsupported. This is complete for an agent to select and correctly interpret the tool's results.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (claim with examples, tolerance_pct with range and default behavior). The description itself does not add further parameter-level detail; it only reinforces the claim examples implicitly. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no significant semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 concrete trigger phrases ('Is it true that...', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that...') and explicitly states the tool performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes two distinct paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company financials vs grounded pipeline for everything else), and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its scope and role clear relative to siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies when the structured fast path applies (company-financial claims) and when it falls back to the grounded pipeline, plus the explicit efficiency note that it replaces multiple sequential calls. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly distinguishes it from 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 Eia 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap with the router, and eia_series overlaps with the specialized eia_electricity/eia_ethanol/eia_natural_gas/eia_petroleum tools. The Polymarket opportunity scanners and the two AI-visibility checkers also blur together, making confident tool selection difficult despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb-first pattern (remember, recall, forget, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are notable deviations: eia_electricity and eia_ethanol are noun-first category names, recent_alerts and recent_changes are adjective-noun, and pipeworx_trending and polymarket_edges are not verb-driven. The eia_ and polymarket_ prefixes add some predictability, so the naming is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, this is well past the heavy threshold and feels like a kitchen-sink aggregation of several separate products rather than one focused server. Many tools could be consolidated: the five eia_* lookups, the multiple ask_pipeworx variants, and the several Polymarket scanners all serve close purposes. A 36-tool surface is too much for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

Within the major subdomains the set is quite complete: entity research has profile/compare/changes/resolve, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and Polymarket analysis has edge discovery, fill-risk, venue-spread, and persistence tracking. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update flow, no dedicated EIA coal/nuclear/renewables series beyond the generic eia_series fallback—but agents can work around them.

Resources