Skip to main content
Glama

Firecrawl

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds critical behavioral nuance beyond those: explains verdicts (confirmed, refuted, etc.), the crucial distinction between 'could_not_verify' (system failure, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source found), and the verbatim-evidence and citation behavior. This is exactly the kind of context agents need, and 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: example phrasings, the two-path routing, verdict list, error semantics, and a concise efficiency pitch. It opens with concrete trigger phrases that help the agent recognize when to invoke it, and the structure flows logically from purpose to behavior to return details.

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 covers return values: the six verdicts, the grounded or structured actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also explains the failure mode (could_not_verify with verification_error) and the meaning of unsupported. For a tool with multiple routing paths and edge cases, this is complete guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of tolerance_pct ('Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording… set 1–2 for hallucination detection') and shows how the claim parameter is interpreted via example user phrasings. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: verifying natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback) and explicitly notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its role as a specialized fact-checking tool unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies the internal routing (financial claims vs. any other claim), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools like search or ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it lacks a direct comparison to alternatives.

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

All Firecrawl 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the Polymarket analytics tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have overlapping focuses that could confuse an agent if descriptions are not read carefully. Overall, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are lowercase with underscores and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities). Prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ group related tools. No mixing of conventions or vague names.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad scope covering Pipeworx data access, Polymarket analytics, web scraping, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool has a distinct role, and the set is not overly bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of tasks: data queries, prediction market analysis, web scraping, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for user account management or writing data back, but the core domain is well-covered with multiple specialized tools.

Resources