Skip to main content
Glama

Fred

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the exact meaning of the 'could_not_verify' verdict, that it is NOT evidence for or against a claim and should never be presented as such, and the distinction from 'unsupported'. It also explains the structured fast path (SEC EDGAR + XBRL with exact percent-delta math) versus the grounded fallback, which is valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 longer than minimal, but it is front-loaded with trigger phrases and then follows a logical structure: purpose, two-path explanation, return format, caller warning, and value proposition. Every sentence carries distinct information; the 'IMPORTANT for callers' section is essential and not filler. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because the trigger phrase list and some redundancy could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple verdict types, failure semantics, dual routing paths, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns (verdict, grounded or structured actual value, citation, reasoning), clarifies the critical could_not_verify behavior, and ties in the replacement of a multi-step workflow. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately without needing to see the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('claim' and 'tolerance_pct') are thoroughly documented in the input schema, including examples, defaults, and overriding behavior. The description itself adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema carries the semantic load adequately.

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...') that make the tool's scope unmistakable. It names the specific resource (natural-language claims) and the core action (verification against authoritative sources), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like deep_research or ask_pipeworx by describing its two execution paths and direct verdict outputs.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates the routing logic for company-financial claims versus any other factual claim, and notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving the agent a clear reason to prefer this tool over composing a chain manually.

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

All Fred 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
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. The FRED and Polymarket tool sets are well-organized with unique responsibilities. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_subscriptions). However, a few tools like 'forget', 'remember', and 'recall' deviate by being single verbs, and 'pipeworx_feedback' uses a noun_verb format. Overall, the naming is predictable but has minor inconsistencies.

Tool Count4/5

With 37 tools covering a broad domain (economic data, prediction markets, company profiles, subscriptions, memory, etc.), the count is reasonable and justifiable. It is slightly above the typical sweet spot but not excessive, and each tool serves a specific purpose. The scope is broad enough to warrant this many tools.

Completeness5/5

The server provides a comprehensive surface for its domain, including CRUD-like operations for data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), specialized tools for prediction markets (arbitrage, edges), and utilities (memory, subscriptions). Obvious operations like entity resolution, comparison, and change tracking are present. No critical gaps are apparent for the stated purpose of querying structured data and engaging with prediction markets.

Resources