Skip to main content
Glama

Fas

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the verdict categories and, critically, explaining that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. It also specifies what 'unsupported' means, the error structure, and the routing behavior, giving callers essential non-obvious context.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases for routing, the use case, the dual-path behavior, the full verdict list with critical caveats, and the value proposition of replacing multiple calls. It is front-loaded with the most actionable information and avoids 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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return payload (verdict set, actual value with citation, reasoning), error semantics for could_not_verify, and source-coverage meaning for unsupported. It also clarifies internal steps (entity resolution, comparison) so the agent understands exactly what the tool does and what to expect.

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?

Schema already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including tolerance range, default behavior, and use-case examples. The description adds only high-level context (percent-delta math, grounded pipeline) without introducing new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification with explicit trigger phrases and a specific verb ('validate', 'verify'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline) and the verdict-based output, making its scope unmistakable.

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 a clear use condition ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and provides an internal decision rule for financial vs non-financial claims. It mentions replacing 4–6 sequential calls, implying efficiency benefits, but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, stopping 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 Fas 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research vs. validate_claim). However, a few pairs like ask_pipeworx_beta vs. ask_pipeworx and validate_claim vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping roles, even though descriptions do differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and many follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Some exceptions like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending break the strict verb_noun pattern but remain readable and stylistically uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, this is above the typical 'well-scoped' range and exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heavy servers. However, the server covers a very broad domain (financial data, prediction markets, agriculture, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), which partially justifies the count, but it still feels bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major workflows: data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity resolution and comparison, prediction-market analysis, agricultural data (FAS tools), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscription management (subscribe/unsubscribe/list). The only minor gap is lack of direct write/update operations for external data, but that's not expected for a read-heavy platform.

Resources