Skip to main content
Glama

Epss

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 already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description enriches this by detailing two pipeline paths, returning a specific verdict enum, and warning that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and 'must not be shown as one' of the evidence verdicts. It also clarifies the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', adding error semantics that annotations cannot convey.

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, with no filler. It front-loads the purpose with example phrasings, then follows with routing, return semantics, a critical caveat, and an efficiency note; each sentence contributes meaningful operational detail, though the length is at the upper bound of conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the verdict values, the returned actual value with citation, and reasoning, while also defining the failure modes (could_not_verify with verification_error, unsupported). For a tool that replaces multiple sequential steps and has two routing paths, the description fully covers what the agent needs to invoke it and interpret 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?

Both parameters (claim, tolerance_pct) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including the tolerance override range and hallucination-detection guidance. The description adds only tangential context (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math') already implied by the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured definition.

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 example natural-language phrasings and defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from general query tools by specifying a fast path for company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR/XBRL and a grounded pipeline for other factual claims, and notes it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls,' which separates it from sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also explains the two routing paths (company-financial vs any other claim) and the efficiency benefit over sequential calls, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls 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 Epss 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping functional space: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target Polymarket opportunity detection. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can easily select the wrong query/research or prediction-market tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and clusters like polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are internally consistent. However, the overall set mixes verb_object names (compare_entities, resolve_entity), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, top_exploited), so there is no unifying naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the count exceeds the reasonable threshold for a focused server, and the problem is worse because the server is named Epss while most tools are Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. A focused EPSS server would need only a handful of tools; this is a grab bag.

Completeness2/5

For the EPSS purpose implied by the server name, only get_epss and top_exploited exist, with no CVE search, historical score context, or vulnerability-management tooling. The unrelated research, memory, and prediction-market tools are individually fairly complete, but they do not fill the gap for the apparent EPSS use case.

Resources