Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Form D

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive, read-only, open-world tool, and the description adds substantial operational context: the SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path, automatic fallback for other claims, the exact verdict vocabulary, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also explains the return payload includes verbatim evidence and pipeworx:// citations.

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, with every sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with user phrasing examples and ends with the impactful note about replacing sequential calls. It could be slightly tightened, but the length is justified by the complexity of the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating all possible verdicts, the format of the actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also explains failure modes (could_not_verify with verification_error) and what unsupported means. This is complete for an agent to use the tool safely and interpret results correctly.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful guidance by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording and recommending 1–2 for hallucination detection. This goes beyond simply restating the schema.

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 natural-language invocations and defines the tool as claim verification against authoritative sources. It explicitly contrasts the company-financial structured path from the general grounded pipeline and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making it clearly distinct from sibling research tools.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which is clear guidance. It also explains the fallback behavior and the meaning of could_not_verify. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or direct users to alternative sibling tools.

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

All Sec Form D 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions to data sources with minor differences. Form D tools and meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe). However, there are minor deviations like bet_research and deep_research without clear verbs, and the ask_pipeworx variants use irregular suffixes.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the server is over-scoped, including many utility and meta-tools (remember, recall, forget, list_subscriptions) that inflate the count beyond the core domain (SEC Form D and data lookups). A more focused set of 10-15 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very broad range of data sources and actions, including SEC filings, prediction markets, entity profiling, and AI visibility. However, the completeness is uneven; for example, there are many Form D tools but few for other SEC forms, and some areas like weather or clinical trials are only accessible via ask_pipeworx.

Resources