Pharma Intel

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claim`	Yes	Natural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
`tolerance_pct`	No	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 15, 2026

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"
+}

AddedMay 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it defines the verdict types, distinguishes 'could_not_verify' from 'unsupported', mentions verification_error with stage/detail, and explains exact percent-delta math and verbatim evidence with citations. This adds substantial non-obvious context that the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) do not cover.

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 information-dense, front-loaded with trigger phrases and usage context. It includes essential caveats (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and replacement semantics, all of which earn their place. It could be slightly more concise by trimming some repetitive examples, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdict types, actual value, reasoning, citation) and error handling (verification_error). It covers routing logic and edge cases, making it fully complete for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 100% coverage of both parameters, with detailed descriptions and examples for claim and tolerance_pct. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 clearly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verbs like 'fact check' and 'verify'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the two-path routing (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise) and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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' and provides trigger phrases. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Pharma Intel tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within the same domain (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs ask_pipeworx_beta are differentiated by groundedness/beta status; polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_fill_risk each target discovery vs arbitrage vs execution risk). The descriptions are highly detailed, eliminating ambiguity about when to use each.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and most follow a verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, search_, validate_), but a few are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts). The style is readable and predictable, though not perfectly uniform in the verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped, especially given the 'Pharma Intel' name that suggests a focused pharma domain. Many tools are general-purpose (prediction markets, memory, subscription management, feedback) unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making it feel like a grab bag rather than a cohesive set.

Completeness4/5

The pharma-specific tools cover drug profiles, safety, pipeline scans, catalysts, indication landscapes, and sponsor diligence – a solid lifecycle coverage. The broader data/query/prediction-market tools also feel complete for their respective sub-domains. The only minor gaps are niche operations (e.g., updating a subscription), but these are not critical to the core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?