Skip to main content
Glama

Macrostrat

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description exposes pipeline routing, return verdicts, citation format, and critical caller rules: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, while unsupported means no source exists. It also discloses tolerance behavior and the grounded/structured fallback.

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 long but front-loaded with purpose and trigger phrases, then compactly covers routing, verdicts, citations, and warnings. Some details are dense, but every sentence carries meaningful guidance; it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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 specifies return values (verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning), interprets edge-verdict states, and documents pipeline fallback. It leaves no material gap for callers on how to act on results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning by explaining tolerance_pct defaults, override behavior, the cap at 5, and its use for hallucination detection. Claim examples show expected natural-language format beyond the schema's generic description.

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 defines the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that' and a specific verb-resource pair: verifying factual claims. It also distinguishes subpaths for company-financial vs other claims and states it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, separating it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and lists financial vs grounded routing. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., subjective or non-factual questions), but the factual-claim scope and important could_not_verify handling provide clear usage context.

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

All Macrostrat 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, e.g., geology tools vs. Polymarket tools vs. memory tools. The main ambiguity is between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but their descriptions clearly differentiate them (grounded vs. casual). Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names use snake_case consistently, but the structure varies: some are verb_noun (find_columns), some are noun_noun (entity_profile), some are single verbs (forget). This mix reduces predictability, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 29 tools, the server covers many domains (geology, finance, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This is a large surface for a server named 'Macrostrat', which implies a geology focus. The count feels bloated for a coherent set, though each tool individually seems justified.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is quite complete for its diverse sub-areas: geology has lookup tools, Pipeworx/Poly market has search, comparison, arbitrage, and memory/subscriptions have full CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed geology unit edits), but overall coverage is strong.

Resources