Skip to main content
Glama

Gdc

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 description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it explains the two pipeline paths, the meaning of special verdicts ('could_not_verify' means the check didn't happen and must not be interpreted as evidence; 'unsupported' means no source covers it), and the inclusion of citations and reasoning in the return. It also details error handling with verification_error{stage,detail}. This is exactly the context an agent needs and goes well beyond the basic readOnlyHint/openWorldHint 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: it opens with trigger examples to aid natural-language recognition, then explains the two execution paths, return values, special verdict semantics, and the efficiency gain. The structure is logical and front-loaded, moving from general purpose to specific caller-facing warnings. No fluff 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 carries full responsibility for explaining return values. It covers all expected outputs: the six possible verdicts, the actual value with pipeworx:// citation, reasoning, and error details. For a high-complexity tool with two distinct pipelines and nuanced verdict meanings, the description is comprehensive. The context signals (2 params, no enums, no output schema) are fully addressed.

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 coverage is 100% with well-described parameters: 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' are both documented with examples and semantics. The description adds some context (e.g., tolerance_pct used for hallucination detection, default implied by wording) but does not materially extend the schema's already thorough descriptions. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description doesn't compensate with extra details.

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 states the tool's function as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on claim verification and by describing the dual-path handling for financial vs. other claims. The example user phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', etc.) leave no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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' and details the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path for financial, grounded pipeline for other facts). It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving a clear efficiency-based reason to choose this tool over alternatives. Though it doesn't name a specific alternative, the guidance is unambiguous.

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

All Gdc 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 distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap in routing (differ only in answer mode), and the multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread) could cause confusion without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming mix of verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes) patterns. Most use snake_case consistently, but the pattern is not uniform—some tools are commands, others are descriptors. Notable deviations like 'pipeworx_feedback' and 'pmc' are missing here but the sample shows inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

30 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (data lookup, betting, AI, genomics, memory). Some tools could be merged (e.g., ask_pipeworx and its grounded variant), and the betting subdomain feels over-instrumented. The count is borderline between appropriate and heavy.

Completeness3/5

The server provides a wide range of operations for its diverse domains, but gaps exist: the genomics tools only offer basic metadata search (no download/analysis), and the betting tools lack historical data or backtesting. It covers common patterns but with notable omissions for a cohesive experience.

Resources