Skip to main content
Glama

Itis

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviors, so the description adds significant context beyond that: the dual-path routing (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline), the specific verdict output set, citation requirement, and the crucial caller-facing note distinguishing 'could_not_verify' from 'unsupported' and clarifying that it must not be interpreted as evidence. This is rich, behavior-revealing information.

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 front-loaded with concrete user-phrase examples and a direct usage statement. Although lengthy, every sentence earns its place: two routing paths, output specification, and a clearly structured 'IMPORTANT' caveat. Formatting aids readability without fluff.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers input phrasing, routing logic, return value (verdict + value + citation + reasoning), and critical edge-case semantics for 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. The added note about replacing multiple sequential calls contextualizes its role. No operational gaps remain.

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%, with both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' already fully described. The description reinforces the tolerance semantics ('exact percent-delta math', 'capped at 5') but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 with a specific verb and resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the designated fact-checking tool for both company-financial claims (via SEC EDGAR/XBRL) and any other factual claims, with examples of user phrasing.

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 direct guidance. It also differentiates when to use the financial fast path vs. the general grounded pipeline. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use the tool, so it stops short of a full with/without comparison.

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

All Itis 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/validate_claim all provide grounded answering, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all surface betting opportunities. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between routers and research modes are fuzzy enough that an agent could easily select the wrong one. The taxonomy, memory, and subscription clusters are distinct, but they are drowned out by the overlapping meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, which provides some visual consistency, but the verb_noun pattern is not consistently applied: search_taxa/get_hierarchy are clean verb_noun, while deep_research, entity_profile, polymarket_edges, and bet_research are noun-ish or reversed patterns. There is good family-level consistency within ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_*, but the overall set mixes conventions and requires reading descriptions to infer what each tool does.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well over the 25-tool threshold and reflects a sprawling multi-domain server spanning taxonomy, structured-data lookup, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, and AI visibility. Each cluster may be individually reasonable, but as a single MCP surface it is too heavy and forces agents to filter through many irrelevant tools.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-research and prediction-market purpose, the surface is fairly complete: it covers routing, grounded answers, deep multi-source research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, entity resolution, subscriptions, alerts, memory, and market edge/fill checks. Minor gaps exist—no direct web-search tool, the beta router adds no current behavior, and some patent endpoints soft-fail—but agents can generally work around them.

Resources