Skip to main content
Glama

Statbel Be

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond by disclosing the two execution paths, the verdict taxonomy, the inclusion of pipeworx:// citations, and the precise semantics of 'could_not_verify' (carries verification_error, must not be shown as evidence) and 'unsupported'. No contradiction with 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 long but every sentence earns its place: examples, usage trigger, path routing, return details, and caller-critical caveats. It opens with the most actionable content (what the tool does) and progressively layers detail, never repeating schema information. Structure is highly efficient for its complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning), enumerates all verdicts, distinguishes error states, and covers fallback behavior. It also explains efficiency benefits relative to prior multi-call flows. For a 2-parameter tool with complex behavior, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable meaning: it gives concrete example claims, explains that tolerance_pct overrides the wording-implied tolerance, specifies the default cap (5), and suggests setting 1–2 for hallucination detection. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 natural-language query examples and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' — a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by describing a two-path architecture (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs grounded pipeline) and explicitly notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique role unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It then subdivides use cases (company-financial claims vs any other factual claim) and provides crucial exclusion guidance for the 'could_not_verify' outcome, telling callers not to treat it as evidence. This is clear when-and-when-not guidance.

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

All Statbel Be 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

The set contains several clusters of overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve broad data-query purposes, while the six Polymarket-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap in scope. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent would frequently struggle to choose the correct tool among near-synonyms.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the underlying pattern is inconsistent: list_*/get_* for Statbel, ask_* for query routers, noun-heavy names like entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and recent_alerts, plus bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe. It remains readable, but there is no single predictable verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the set exceeds the range where each tool clearly earns its place, and the scope is wildly broad: Belgian statistics, general data lookup, prediction markets, npm dependency checks, memory, subscriptions, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility. A server named 'Statbel Be' carries 31 tools unrelated to that name, which makes the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the Statbel domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: list_datasets, get_dataset, list_views, and get_view only return metadata — there is no tool to actually fetch the statistical data values. For the broader Pipeworx data-access domain, coverage is more complete, but the server's stated purpose is under-served and leaves core workflows at a dead end.

Resources