Skip to main content
Glama

Data Austin

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 the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds crucial behavioral details: the SEC EDGAR fast path with 'exact percent-delta math', the fallback pipeline for any other claim, and important caller guidance distinguishing 'could_not_verify' (error during verification) from 'unsupported' (no source found). It even describes the error structure and warns not to present 'could_not_verify' as evidence. This is rich, non-redundant context.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value. It starts with user-intent phrases, states the primary use case, explains the two processing paths, lists return values, and ends with a critical caveat and efficiency claim. The structure is logical and front-loaded, with no wasted words or tautology.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two pathways, multiple verdicts) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values: a verdict (with the full enum), the actual value with a pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also covers failure semantics ('could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported') and explicitly states it replaces multiple sequential calls, providing full operational context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning to 'tolerance_pct' by explaining how it overrides the claim's implied tolerance, setting defaults, and giving a specific use case ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'). The claim parameter is illustrated with naturally formatted examples. This enrichment goes beyond the schema, though the schema already handles the basics.

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 states the tool's function with specific verbs: 'verify the claim that…', 'confirm or refute', and accurately describes it as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering both company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR and other factual claims via a grounded pipeline, positioning it as a comprehensive fact-checking tool.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It differentiates from alternatives by noting it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' and provides clear routing rules (company-financial vs. other claims). However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Data Austin 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants (beta, grounded) and several prediction market tools (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, spread). While descriptions help differentiate them, the abundance of similar tools makes it easy for an agent to misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are a mix of snake_case with inconsistent prefixes: some use 'ask_', 'polymarket_', 'austin_', while others are isolated verbs (forget, remember) or compound nouns (entity_profile). The pattern is not uniform but still readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is heavy. Although each tool seems justified for its niche, the set could be consolidated (e.g., merging ask_pipeworx variants) to reduce clutter. The count feels slightly excessive for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of domains: Austin open data, pipeworx data, prediction markets, memory management, and subscriptions. Core workflows are well-supported, with only minor gaps like a missing cross-source search tool.

Resources