Skip to main content
Glama

Data Denver

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining the two processing paths, enumerating all six verdict categories, and crucially distinguishing 'could_not_verify' (with verification_error, not evidence) from 'unsupported' (no source coverage). This is valuable behavioral context that prevents misinterpretation of results and is not available from annotations or schema.

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 somewhat long, but it is front-loaded with usage examples and each section (routing, verdicts, error semantics, replacement value) adds distinct, non-redundant information. It is well-organized and every sentence contributes, though a tighter structure could have been slightly more concise.

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 though there is no output schema, the description fully specifies return values (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning), explains all verdict outcomes, details error semantics (verification_error, unsupported vs could_not_verify), and outlines the two routing paths. This is a complete operational spec for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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%: both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' are already well-documented with examples and semantics. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool with concrete example phrasings ("Is it true that…", "fact check"), a clear verb-resource pair (verify claim), and differentiates it from generic lookup tools by stating it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct" and outlines two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for other factual claims). It notes the tool replaces a multi-step process, which implies a preference over sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it falls slightly 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 Denver 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical (beta is currently exactly the same), and scan_competitor_ai_presence is a multi-entity wrapper around ai_visibility_check. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong variant when a simple lookup is needed.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim) with noun-first patterns (denver_layers, entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges). There are clear families (ask_pipeworx_*, denver_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) but no single consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a large surface for one server, exceeding the 25-tool threshold where coherence starts to degrade. Many tools are meta-routers or near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx family), and the mix of general data access, Denver-specific queries, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions feels sprawling rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the apparent domain well: universal data lookup, grounded evidence, deep research, entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, claim validation, AI visibility, dependency scanning, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct update tool for subscriptions, no way to inspect the full 5,798-tool catalog locally without routing through ask_pipeworx), but agents can accomplish most workflows without dead ends.

Resources