Skip to main content
Glama

iconify

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses important behaviors: the two routing paths, the exact verdict values returned, the critical distinction between could_not_verify (with verification_error) and unsupported, and the mention of verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations. This is rich behavioral context that helps an agent interpret results and avoid misusing error states.

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 yet efficient. It front-loads example utterances to signal intent, then methodically covers usage, routing, return values, and error semantics. Every sentence contributes substantive information; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: verdicts, actual values with citations, and reasoning. It also clarifies the semantics of could_not_verify and unsupported, which are crucial for correct downstream handling. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema already covers both parameters 100%, but the description adds significant value: for tolerance_pct it explains how to override the implied tolerance, gives the range and a specific use case (hallucination detection), and states the default behavior. For claim it provides clear examples. This goes well beyond the schema 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 states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific example phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from generic Q&A tools by describing the structured SEC EDGAR fast path for company-financial claims versus a grounded pipeline for all other claims, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also details routing logic for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools to use instead (e.g., ask_pipeworx for general queries), so it lacks the 'when-not' or alternative comparisons needed for a 5.

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

All iconify 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same data sources, and the Polymarket family (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has blurred boundaries. Agents would struggle to pick the right one without reading every description carefully.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but follows no consistent verb_noun pattern. Verbs vary widely (ask_, get_, list_, search_, compare_, scan_, validate_, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, discover, generate, resolve, suggest) and many tools are bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges). The inconsistency makes the set feel ad hoc.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the heavy side, and the count is inflated by many near-duplicate data-router and prediction-market tools. The server is named 'iconify' yet only 3 of 34 tools actually relate to icons, indicating poor scoping for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the icon domain, the surface is minimal (list, search, get) with no create/update/delete. For the broader data/prediction-market domain, there are significant gaps in lifecycle coverage (e.g., subscriptions have create/cancel but no pause/resume, and the memory tools lack namespacing). The mixed focus means no single domain is fully covered.

Resources