Skip to main content
Glama

Newsdata

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, the description adds vital behavioral nuance: 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... it is NOT evidence for or against the claim,' and distinguishes unsupported. It also discloses the internal routing logic and that it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls,' giving callers confidence about safety and semantics.

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 well-structured, using trigger phrases, a clear use-case statement, routing details, and an important caller warning. Each sentence carries substantive information with no filler, so the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and the special meanings of could_not_verify and unsupported. The routing logic and purpose are fully covered, making the description self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct), including defaults and override behavior. The description adds little beyond what the schema says, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with concrete trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and then defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on verifying factual claims, and even specifies a structured fast path for company-financial claims.

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 states when to use it: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains routing (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise), though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives or provide explicit exclusion criteria.

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

All Newsdata 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

Most tools have detailed usage guidance, but there are several overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research; discover_tools vs suggest_questions; entity_profile vs recent_changes; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. The descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always crisp enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly lower_snake_case, but conventions vary widely: some are verb-first (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun/adjective phrases (recent_changes, entity_profile), and several use brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). The naming is readable but lacks a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and the scope sprawls beyond news/data into prediction-market arbitrage, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility audits, memory, subscriptions, and llms.txt generation. Each tool may be useful, but the set feels like several different servers merged into one, making it oversized and harder to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The research workflow is well covered: universal routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profiles/comparisons, change feeds, discovery/onboarding, subscriptions, and memory all exist. Minor gaps include no direct pipeworx:// citation fetch tool and no broader account/profile management, but agents can work around these.

Resources