Skip to main content
Glama

Ror

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only/open-world/idempotent, and the description adds high-value behavioral detail: the verdict enum, the distinction between 'check didn't happen' and 'no source exists,' the verification_error structure, and routing logic to different data sources. No contradiction.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence earns its place: examples, routing, verdict enum, error handling, and the replacement value are all covered. It is densely informative without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers routing, return values, edge cases (could_not_verify, unsupported), and the value proposition of consolidating multiple calls.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining tolerance_pct semantics (default, cap of 5, and use for hallucination detection) and providing natural-language examples for claim.

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 query paraphrases ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check') and states it performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly differentiates from sibling research/search tools by specifying a verdict output 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 Guidelines5/5

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,' and distinguishes between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR fast path) and all other claims (grounded pipeline). It also clarifies the meaning of could_not_verify vs unsupported to prevent misuse.

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

All Ror 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve a discovery role. The extremely detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between meta-tools and research tools are genuinely confusing, especially with 34 tools in one namespace.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare verbs (get, search, recall), nouns (affiliation, entity_profile, recent_changes), and verb_noun phrases (resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some families are consistent (polymarket_*), but overall there is no uniform convention or prefix scheme, making the set feel arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad data-platform scope explains some of the count, many tools are meta-utilities (feedback, trending, memory, subscription management) and there are near-duplicate variants (three ask_pipeworx forms, six Polymarket tools) that inflate the surface.

Completeness4/5

For a data-research platform the surface is impressively complete: lookup, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, claim checking, subscription lifecycle, memory, and tool discovery are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct general-purpose web fetch, and ROR lacks create/update, which is acceptable for a curated registry), but agents should rarely hit dead ends.

Resources