Skip to main content
Glama

Colorado Information Marketplace

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?

Despite readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations already covering safety, the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: it explains the verdict set, distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence) from 'unsupported' (no source covered), and describes the dual-path pipeline. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and prevents misinterpretation.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases, then flows through pipeline selection, return values, and an important caller warning. Every sentence adds value—the 'IMPORTANT for callers' note is essential and clearly structured. Despite its length, it remains tight and scannable.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description fully enumerates the verdict values, the actual value with citation, and reasoning; it also explains failure semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and pipeline selection. For a tool with this complexity, nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), and the description enriches them by explaining tolerance_pct behavior (overrides implied tolerance, set 1-2 for hallucination detection, default capped at 5). This adds meaningful operational guidance beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate rather than the baseline 3.

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's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases like "fact check" and "verify the claim that." It distinguishes itself from sibling research/query tools by focusing on fact-checking and returning verdicts, and even notes it replaces 4-6 sequential calls.

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?

Explicitly states "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct," which is clear context. It also divides claims into company-financial (via SEC EDGAR) and all other facts, but does not name alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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

All Colorado Information Marketplace 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

The tool set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile / recent_changes / compare_entities, and a half-dozen prediction-market tools. The descriptions are unusually detailed and mostly steer an agent correctly, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx and the prediction-market tools still require careful reading to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but the conventions vary: many are verb_noun (resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim), some are bare nouns (datasets, metadata, query), some are bare imperatives (remember, forget, subscribe), and there are separate prefix families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*. It is readable and consistent in style, but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and the set is not tightly scoped: only datasets, metadata, and query directly relate to the stated Colorado Information Marketplace purpose. The bulk are Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities, making the server feel like a broad platform bolted onto a state-data catalog.

Completeness4/5

For the core read-only lifecycle of the Colorado data catalog, search (datasets), schema inspection (metadata), and data retrieval (query) are covered. Minor gaps exist elsewhere: there is no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation record directly, and some utilities like generate_llms_txt or scan_dependency are unrelated to the server's stated purpose, but most cited workflows can still complete.

Resources