Skip to main content
Glama

Wolfram Alpha

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the two pipeline paths (SEC/XBRL vs grounded), the meaning of each verdict (especially could_not_verify vs unsupported), and the 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls' efficiency. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 and front-loaded with purpose and examples. Each section (routing, verdicts, error semantics) earns its place. It could be tightened, but it is not bloated or redundant.

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 compensates by explaining the return values (verdict types, citation, reasoning) and the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. This makes the tool's behavior fully self-contained and clear for an agent to 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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds practical guidance for tolerance_pct (e.g., 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection') and clarifies the default behavior, adding value beyond 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 clearly defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with concrete examples of user phrasing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on fact-checking with a verdict output, rather than general Q&A or research.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also details the routing logic for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance, which prevents a 5.

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

All Wolfram Alpha 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

Several tools are near-indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping routing behavior. discover_tools vs suggest_questions and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence also create boundary ambiguity, making misselection likely for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix bare verbs (recall, remember, forget), brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and descriptive phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix convention, and the server name 'Wolfram Alpha' does not match the dominant pipeworx_/polymarket_ naming.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad data platform. Several unrelated add-ons (memory trio, ai_visibility, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) could live in separate servers, contributing to bloat and diluting the core purpose.

Completeness3/5

The data-research and prediction-market surfaces are fairly thorough (routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, subscriptions), but the Wolfram Alpha core is thin—only short_answer, full_query, and wolfram_compute—with no step-by-step solutions, units catalog, or history. The mismatched server name and unrelated tools indicate an incoherent scope with notable gaps.

Resources