{"uid":"cap_qXR7Q0TGb0xzPw1xzHymK","slug":"verity-suite-arbiter-pro-68af7592","name":"Verity Suite Arbiter Pro","description":"The trust fabric for AI agents — calibrated, fail-closed services agents pay per call.","url":"https://verity-suite.onrender.com/arbiter/pro","method":"POST","headers":{},"bodySchema":{"type":"object","required":["claims"],"properties":{"claims":{"type":"array","description":"Two or more mutually conflicting claims/positions to adjudicate, one per item, in stable order. Fewer than two means nothing to adjudicate."},"evidence":{"type":"array","description":"Retrieved evidence excerpts/sources to judge from. If empty, weak, or off-topic, the verdict MUST reflect that (insufficient_evidence)."},"question":{"type":"string","description":"The specific point in dispute the claims are answering, if narrower than the claims themselves. Used to scope relevance only."}}},"responseSchema":{"type":"object","title":"arbiter_out","required":["verdict","confidence","reasons"],"properties":{"reasons":{"type":"array","items":{"type":"string"},"title":"Reasons","description":"Concrete reasons that cite, by content, which evidence item supports or undercuts which claim (reference claims by their index). Never vague summaries."},"verdict":{"enum":["claim_supported","undecidable","insufficient_evidence"],"type":"string","title":"Verdict","description":"claim_supported = exactly one claim is clearly better supported by the provided evidence. undecidable = relevant evidence is present but balanced, mutually contradictory, or equally (un)supportive, with no clear winner. insufficient_evidence = no provided evidence, or it is too thin/off-topic/low-quality to favor any claim, OR fewer than two distinct claims were given."},"confidence":{"type":"number","title":"Confidence","maximum":1,"minimum":0,"description":"Calibrated 0..1 strength of the verdict: how decisively the provided evidence favors the chosen claim. MUST be 0.0 whenever verdict is not claim_supported."},"missing_evidence":{"type":"array","items":{"type":"string"},"title":"Missing Evidence","description":"What specific evidence would be needed to decide. Populate when verdict is undecidable or insufficient_evidence; may be empty when claim_supported."},"best_supported_index":{"anyOf":[{"type":"string"},{"type":"null"}],"title":"Best Supported Index","description":"Zero-based index, as a decimal string (e.g. \"0\"), into 'claims' of the better-supported claim. Present ONLY when verdict=claim_supported, and exactly one index; omit entirely otherwise."}}},"example":null,"exampleRequest":null,"tags":["x402"],"displayCostAmount":"0.35","displayCostAsset":"USDC","priceDynamic":false,"priceHint":null,"priceStatus":"priced","priceSource":"registry","requiresHandshake":false,"reviewCount":0,"rating":{"score":"0.00","successRate":"0.00","reviews":0,"stars":null,"state":"unrated"},"availabilityStatus":"unknown","priceObserved":null,"sessionDeposit":null,"pricing":{"kind":"static","summary":"$0.35/call","primary":{"kind":"static","protocol":"x402","network":"base","amountUsd":"0.35","per":"call","confidence":"exact"},"accepted":[{"kind":"static","protocol":"x402","network":"base","amountUsd":"0.35","per":"call","confidence":"exact"}]},"paymentMethods":[{"uid":"pm_rphTaRcFLdaNG3qaD2-ZK","protocol":"x402","methodType":"crypto","chain":"base","mode":"charge","costAmount":"0.35","costPer":"request","priority":0,"asset":null,"unit":"request","depositMicros":null,"planRef":null}],"brandName":null,"brandSlug":null,"brandBaseUrl":null,"brandDocsUrl":null,"whatItDoes":"Adjudicates between two or more conflicting claims by evaluating provided evidence and returning a calibrated, fail-closed verdict with confidence score.","exampleAgentPrompt":"I have two conflicting claims about climate change attribution — claim 0: 'Human CO2 emissions are the primary driver of post-1950 warming' and claim 1: 'Solar variability explains most observed warming' — and here are three evidence excerpts from IPCC AR6 and NASA datasets. Which claim does the evidence support, and how confident are you?","exampleUseCases":null,"resultDescription":"Returns a structured object with a verdict enum ('claim_supported', 'undecidable', or 'insufficient_evidence'), a calibrated 0–1 confidence score (0.0 if verdict is not claim_supported), a list of concrete reasons citing specific evidence items and claim indices, the zero-based index of the best-supported claim (only when claim_supported), and optionally a list of missing evidence types needed to decide.","failureModes":["Fewer than two claims provided — verdict will be insufficient_evidence with confidence 0.0","Evidence array is empty or off-topic — verdict returns insufficient_evidence","Evidence is present but equally supports both claims — verdict is undecidable with confidence 0.0","Malformed input schema (missing required 'claims' field) — request rejected","Payment failure or insufficient USDC balance — call not processed"],"whenToPreferThis":"Use this endpoint when an AI agent needs to resolve a factual or argumentative dispute between two or more specific claims using retrieved evidence, and requires a calibrated, fail-closed verdict rather than a probabilistic summary. Prefer it over general LLM reasoning when you need structured output with explicit confidence scores, traceable reasons referencing claim indices, and a defined fallback to 'insufficient_evidence' rather than hallucinated answers. Ideal for agentic pipelines where downstream decisions depend on knowing whether evidence is strong enough to decide.","instructions":null,"reviewSummary":null,"reviewSummaryHighlights":null,"reviewSummaryConcerns":null,"reviewSummaryGeneratedAt":null,"activationCount":0,"lastUsedAt":null,"lastSuccessfullyRanAt":null,"lastHealthCheckAt":"2026-09-14T00:45:19.586Z","isFirstParty":false}