Skip to main content
Glama

Owid

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

A4.5/5.0
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 verdict types, the meaning of could_not_verify and unsupported, and the error structure (verification_error{stage,detail}). It also clarifies the distinction between could_not_verify and refuted/inconclusive, which is critical for callers.

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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: it opens with natural-language examples, states the use case, explains the dual processing paths, details return values and error semantics, and highlights a critical caller warning. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no redundancy.

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?

The description is thorough for a complex tool with no output schema. It explains the return verdicts, the meaning of each ambiguous case, the two processing routes, and the advantage over sequential calls. This gives callers enough context to use the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters with examples, defaults, and tolerance ranges. The description adds minimal extra parameter detail (e.g., mentions 'exact percent-delta math' and tolerance implied by wording), but it does not meaningfully supplement the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with a specific verb ('validate', 'fact check') and resource (claims). It distinguishes itself by describing a structured SEC/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims and a grounded pipeline for all other claims, setting it apart from generic ask/deep_research 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', providing a clear trigger. It also explains the two processing routes based on claim type. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the full 5.

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

All Owid 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 clearly distinct purposes, but the multiple 'ask' variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, but there is a mix of verb-first (e.g., ask_pipeworx, fetch_indicator) and noun-first (e.g., ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage) patterns. Consistent style but varied structure.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a coherent set. The server covers diverse domains (data lookup, betting, memory, subscriptions, web generation, package scanning) without a clear unifying theme, making it feel like a collection of utilities rather than a focused tool surface.

Completeness3/5

Core data retrieval and research capabilities are well-covered, but there are notable gaps such as lack of data update tools for OWID and no direct visualization. Additionally, the betting tools are extensive while other areas like entity editing are missing.

Resources