Skip to main content
Glama

Schrodingers Boolean

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the dual-path verification (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline), the meaning of all verdicts, and specifically clarifying that 'could_not_verify' is not evidence against a claim. It also mentions the replacement of 4-6 calls, which reveals the tool's aggregate behavior. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure.

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-organized, starting with trigger examples and then covering usage, paths, verdicts, and important caveats. Each sentence contributes unique value, though some repetition (e.g., listing example phrasings) could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 tool's complexity (two paths, multiple verdicts, error handling), the description fully covers the need-to-know aspects: return values, status semantics, and what 'could_not_verify' versus 'unsupported' mean. No output schema exists, so the description's thorough explanation of outputs and edge cases is critical and well-executed.

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 with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including tolerance_pct's override and default behavior. The tool description adds only a brief mention of 'percent-delta math' and does not offer significant new parameter-level insight, so a baseline score 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It lists trigger phrases and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explaining it replaces multiple sequential calls. The verb 'verify' and resource 'claims' make the purpose 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') and elaborates on the routing logic for financial vs. non-financial claims. It does not explicitly state when not to use an alternative, but the context is strong enough to infer appropriate usage.

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

All Schrodingers Boolean 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 distinct purposes, especially within the Polymarket and data query groups. However, the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the overlap between deep_research and ask_pipeworx for broader questions could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow some consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, scan_, recent_) but overall mix verb_noun, noun phrases, and standalone verbs (forget, recall, remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability, though the patterns are still readable.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is high but justifiable given the server's dual role as a Pipeworx data gateway and Polymarket analysis suite. Each tool serves a distinct function in the workflow, but the count borders on heavy and could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle for the server's domain: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, company profiles, fact-checking, prediction market analysis, memory, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (no account management or direct data modification), but these are out of scope for a read-only data interface.

Resources