Skip to main content
Glama

Data Calgary

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and other annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context beyond them: it explains the meaning of the verdict 'could_not_verify' (not evidence, must not be shown as one) and the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. It also reveals the two-path pipeline (structured vs. grounded) and that it returns a value with citation and reasoning. This is substantial transparency.

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 lengthy but well-structured: it opens with trigger phrases, states the core purpose, differentiates the two verification paths, lists output components, and highlights an important caveat with a bolded 'IMPORTANT' callout. Every section serves a purpose, though some redundancy exists between 'natural-language claim verification' and 'check whether something a user said is factually correct'.

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 complex parameter types, no output schema, multiple possible verdicts), the description is thorough: it specifies when to use, the internal routing logic, the exact verdict list, and the semantics of ambiguous verdicts. This fully equips an agent to decide when to call it and how to interpret the result, making it nearly complete.

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?

The input schema alone describes both parameters with clear descriptions and examples (100% coverage). The description does mention 'exact percent-delta math' and tolerance concepts indirectly, but it does not add any new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as a claim-verification tool with specific verb phrases ('verify the claim that...', 'fact check') and resource ('natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by outlining the fast path for financial claims and the grounded pipeline for other claims, and it even notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and clarifies the routing between financial and non-financial claims. However, it does not name any alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance needed for 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 Calgary 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are overlapping families (ask_pipeworx variants, company research tools) that could cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might misselect without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow snake_case with a verb+noun pattern, but some names are less clear (e.g., 'recall', 'remember' are verbs alone). Overall consistent enough, with minor deviations.

Tool Count4/5

33 tools is on the higher side, but the server covers a wide domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, monitoring). Each tool has a clear purpose, so the count feels appropriate rather than excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete: querying, comparisons, monitoring, alerts, memory, arbitrage, edge tracking. There are no obvious gaps for the intended data analytics and prediction market use case.

Resources