Skip to main content
Glama

Data Michigan

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source), plus the verification_error structure. It also discloses the two-path pipeline and citation behavior, providing rich 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-organized, front-loading purpose and then explaining nuances. It could be tightened (several long semicolon-laden sentences), but every major clause adds information about verdicts, routing, or error semantics. It earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers return values (verdict list, actual value, citation, reasoning), error semantics, unsupported vs could_not_verify, and the two pipeline paths. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect and when to invoke it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'claim' parameter as natural-language factual statements and detailing tolerance_pct's behavior: overrides implied tolerance, recommended values for hallucination detection, and default cap of 5. This is valuable nuance 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 clearly states the tool does natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on verifying user statements and returning a verdict, 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the internal routing between financial and non-financial claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.

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

All Data Michigan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are multiple severe overlap clusters. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,578 tools, and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' — a direct ambiguity. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form another dense, hard-to-distinguish cluster, and entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/resolve_entity all have overlapping entity-investigation purposes. The long descriptions help but an agent would frequently misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant families are internally consistent (polymarket_* prefix, ask_pipeworx_* suffix family, and the verb-based remember/recall/forget), which aids navigation. However, the overall set mixes several conventions: single-word nouns (query, datasets, metadata, recall), verb_noun compounds (validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), and domain_noun names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). Readable, but there is no unified pattern across the server.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is clearly over the 25-threshold for heaviness, and several earn little distinct value: ask_pipeworx_beta is a live duplicate of ask_pipeworx, the five-algorithm Polymarket family could be consolidated, and meta/utility tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_trending, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) feel bolted on rather than essential. The breadth of the data domain justifies some size, but the redundancy and tangents push it into bloat.

Completeness3/5

Within its core sub-domains the surface is fairly complete: company research has resolve→profile/compare→recent_changes→validate_claim as a full lifecycle, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and memory has remember/recall/forget. The Polymarket workflow is especially thorough (detect→verify→fill-risk→track-decay). However, the server's stated identity ('Data Michigan') is barely served — the Michigan Open Data surface is only search/schema/query with no update or write path — and the scatter of unrelated tools (npm dependency scan, llms.txt generation) makes the overall purpose incoherent, so gaps are hard to evaluate.

Resources