Skip to main content
Glama

Materials

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining the nuanced semantics of verdicts: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and is not evidence, unsupported means no source found, and it discloses the verification_error field. This is critical behavioral context that annotations alone don't convey.

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 efficiently structured: trigger phrases, purpose, routing logic, return semantics, and error semantics. Each section earns its place, though it is somewhat dense and could optionally be tightened by moving some examples elsewhere.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description fully enumerates verdicts, the error scenario, and the evidence/citation behavior. It provides enough operational detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance and defaults to a cap of 5, and by illustrating claim formats. This extra nuance raises the score above baseline.

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 claim verification against authoritative sources with a specific verb ('verify') and resource. It opens with natural-language trigger phrases, distinguishes between financial and non-financial claims via distinct pipelines, and enumerates the verdict types returned, making it unmistakable from sibling tools like deep_research.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also details routing for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it doesn't name alternative tools for related but distinct needs (e.g., exploratory research), leaving some exclusions implicit.

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

All Materials 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have detailed descriptions that help differentiate them, there is significant overlap among query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The prediction market tools also cluster together, making it challenging for an agent to quickly pick the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case convention (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist, such as 'ai_visibility_check' and 'deep_research', but overall the naming pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server is larger than typical single-domain servers. While it supports a broad data platform, this count feels somewhat bloated and could benefit from consolidation, especially among overlapping query tools.

Completeness1/5

The server is named 'Materials' but contains only two materials-specific tools (materials_search, materials_stability). The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (finance, economics, prediction markets, etc.), leaving the stated domain severely incomplete.

Resources