Skip to main content
Glama

sec

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral nuances: the distinction between two processing paths, exact percent-delta math for company financials, and the crucial semantics of 'could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported'. It explicitly instructs that 'could_not_verify' must not be treated as evidence, which is valuable beyond structured annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: trigger phrases, verification paths, verdict list, error semantics, and efficiency note. It is front-loaded with usage signals and avoids redundancy. Though long, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error behavior. It also covers parameter semantics, usage scenarios, and distinguishes from siblings. This is a complete standalone description that leaves no major operational questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description enriches them meaningfully: 'tolerance_pct' is explained as overriding the claim's implied tolerance, with a specific use case (1–2 for hallucination detection) and a default cap. The 'claim' parameter is illustrated with concrete examples, adding practical guidance beyond the schema's field description.

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 explicit trigger phrases and states a specific function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing the two verification paths (SEC EDGAR XBRL fast path for company financials, grounded pipeline for all other claims) and mentions 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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and gives trigger phrases. It also clarifies the scope (company-financial vs any other claim) but does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives like ask_pipeworx or deep_research, so it lacks direct exclusion/sibling comparison.

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

All sec 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

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are three variants of the same router — and the beta variant is explicitly stated to be identical to the stable one right now, making mis-selection nearly inevitable. The six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have subtly overlapping boundaries where an agent could easily grab the wrong one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a clear verb_noun or noun_compound shape (get_company_facts, resolve_entity, recent_changes, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations: the bare-verb memory trio (remember/recall/forget), the brand-style ask_pipeworx* naming, and a mix of verb-first vs. entity-first ordering, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, but the server's actual scope is enormous — a universal structured-data gateway, prediction-market suite, memory system, subscription system, and utility tools. However, the count feels inflated by genuine redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the polymarket cluster could plausibly be consolidated into fewer tools.

Completeness4/5

Each sub-domain has strong lifecycle coverage: entity resolution (resolve_entity, search_companies), company analysis (get_company_facts/filings, entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities), full CRUD for both memory and subscriptions, and an exhaustively covered prediction-market domain (research, edges, arb, fill risk, tracking, cross-venue). Minor gaps exist — there's no direct single-filing document fetch tool (search_within implies fetching via the gateway but no explicit getter), and the AI-visibility tools lack historical tracking — but these are workaround-able rather than blocking.

Resources