Skip to main content
Glama

Data Gov Sg

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, etc.), the description discloses nuanced return semantics: 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... must not be shown as one' and 'unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it.' This is critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with query patterns, then routing, return values, error semantics, and ends with the efficiency benefit. Every sentence adds value, though the length is considerable. Slightly less concise than an ideal short description, but no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict categories, actual value, citation, reasoning) and explains error states (could_not_verify, unsupported). It also describes the two verification paths (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline), making the tool self-contained for a caller.

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 schema already covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds operational guidance for tolerance_pct (e.g., 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection' and 'Default: implied by wording, capped at 5') and gives concrete examples of claim phrasing, enhancing the meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with explicit natural-language query patterns and states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly separates this tool from siblings like ask_pipeworx or deep_research by focusing specifically on claim verification (true/false) rather than general Q&A or research.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides direct when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains routing for company-financial vs. other claims and notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying when it should be preferred over multi-step alternatives.

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

All Data Gov Sg 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the Polymarket and company-research toolsets overlap significantly (bet_research vs polymarket_edges, entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes). Even with strong descriptions, an agent can easily misselect among these near-duplicate entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable but mix conventions: verb_noun forms (search_datasets, query_dataset, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim) coexist with noun/adjective forms (air_quality_pm25, taxi_availability, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). There is no single predictable pattern, though the domain-prefix style for Singapore data tools is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is far too many for a server nominally scoped to Singapore government data. The bulk of the surface is a general-purpose Pipeworx/prediction-market/research toolkit that has nothing to do with Data Gov Sg, so the actual Singapore dataset tools are buried under dozens of unrelated capabilities.

Completeness4/5

For the core data.gov.sg use case, the surface is solid: search_datasets, get_dataset, and query_dataset cover dataset discovery and retrieval, supplemented by live-data tools (weather_now, air_quality_psi, traffic_incidents, taxi_availability, uv_index). The broader Pipeworx side also includes helpful auxiliary lifecycle tools like discover, subscribe, recent_alerts, memory, and feedback, so there are no critical dead ends.

Resources