Skip to main content
Glama

Cdc

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behavioral context: the meaning of `could_not_verify` (with verification_error) and the warning not to present it as evidence, plus the definition of `unsupported`. It also discloses that output includes a verdict, but the description explains return values since no output schema exists. The description does not contradict 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 lengthy but appropriately structured and front-loaded: trigger phrases, purpose, usage rules, pathway distinction, output format, then critical caller warnings. Every sentence adds value, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' note is a clean structural highlight. No redundancy or 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 explains return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and nuanced semantics for `could_not_verify` and `unsupported`. It covers the two processing pathways and the efficiency benefit. The description is complete for a complex verification tool, leaving no major gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the input schema already provides; it mentions tolerance calculations in general but does not elaborate on `tolerance_pct` or `claim` syncing. The schema descriptions are sufficient for parameter understanding.

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 explicitly defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides trigger phrases. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the structured SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims and the grounded pipeline for other factual claims, making its unique scope clear.

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?

The description states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and differentiates when the structured path vs. the grounded pipeline applies. It also notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving efficiency context. No explicit exclusions are needed since the tool covers all factual claims.

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

All Cdc 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research serve similar querying purposes, and there is overlap among prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). However, descriptions help differentiate them, so agents can usually select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with verbs (ask_, resolve_, validate_), but there are noun-style exceptions (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) and mixed naming among Polymarket tools. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated, especially given the name 'Cdc' implies a focus on CDC data, yet many tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets and company profiles. Several tools could be consolidated or removed to align with a narrower scope.

Completeness3/5

The CDC domain is thinly covered with only search and get for datasets, lacking upload or advanced filtering. Company financials are limited to basic fundamentals from 10-Ks. Prediction markets are well-covered with arbitrage, edges, and fill risk. The server has notable gaps in its core domain.

Resources