Skip to main content
Glama

Prh Fi

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it explains the two distinct verification paths (structured XBRL and grounded pipeline), the meaning of each verdict (especially distinguishing 'could_not_verify' from 'unsupported'), and the presence of verification_error{stage,detail}. It also notes that could_not_verify should not be treated as evidence, which is critical for correct agent behavior.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose: trigger phrases, routing logic, return values, error qualification, and efficiency benefit. It front-loads with examples and keyword triggers. It could be trimmed slightly (e.g., the 'Replaces 4–6 calls' detail is secondary), but it remains structured and readable.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, how it routes different claim types, what it returns (verdict, value, citation), and nuanced meaning of error variants. It also warns about not presenting could_not_verify as evidence. This is complete for agent guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with examples and default behavior. The description adds minimal extra parameter semantics—it doesn't even mention tolerance_pct directly. With such high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't significantly augment it.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It lists trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on verifying factual claims vs. general search or research. The verb 'validate claim' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also elaborates on routing rules (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not' component for a top score.

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

All Prh Fi 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, and compare_entities all retrieve factual data about entities. Additionally, multiple polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) are highly specialized but can be confused without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), lowercase phrases (ask_pipeworx, forget, recall), and mixed styles (entity_profile, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No clear pattern like verb_noun; tools like 'remember' and 'forget' are single words while others are lengthy phrases.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the coverage is broad (data retrieval, prediction markets, Finnish registry, memory, utilities). However, many tools are redundant or overly specialized, making the count feel bloated. A more focused set could be 20-25 tools.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx tools provide deep coverage for factual data retrieval, and the Finnish registry has basic operations. However, there are gaps in other areas, and the set lacks a unified domain. The inclusion of memory tools and a random llms.txt generator feels out of place, breaking the coherence.

Resources