Skip to main content
Glama

Data Dallas

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?

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description goes beyond by disclosing the verdict values, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (a failed check, not evidence), the distinction between 'unsupported' and 'could_not_verify', the routing to SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline, and the presence of verification_error metadata. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral 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 dense but every sentence contributes: usage phrasings, routing rules, return value summary, caller warnings, and an efficiency note. It is not bloated and avoids tautology, with the most critical information (purpose and routing) front-loaded.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete: it covers input expectations, routing logic, return verdicts, error semantics, and caller responsibilities. Nothing is left ambiguous for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaningful parameter nuance: tolerance_pct overrides the claim's implied tolerance, is capped at 5 by default, and can be set to 1–2 for hallucination detection. The claim parameter is illustrated with realistic examples, enhancing the schema's brief descriptions.

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 natural-language claim verification service, opening with explicit phrasings like 'Is it true that…' and 'fact check'. It names the verb (verify) and resource (factual claims against authoritative sources), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the dual financial/grounded routing paths.

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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying efficiency benefits. However, it does not name alternative tools for non-claim tasks or explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All Data Dallas 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with a few overlapping pairs (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, multiple polymarket tools) that could cause mild confusion, but descriptions adequately differentiate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is not consistently applied; some names are noun_noun (dallas_datasets, bet_research) or adjective_noun (ai_visibility_check), creating a mixed nomenclature.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range. While the broad data domain justifies many tools, the count feels heavy and would benefit from consolidation of related functions.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of domains (company data, drugs, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions) with only minor gaps (e.g., no direct web search tool, as ask_pipeworx mostly covers it). Overall, it is comprehensive for its purpose.

Resources