Skip to main content
Glama

Data Paris

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses crucial behavior: 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen ... must not be shown as one,' 'unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it,' and the verdict/error structure. This adds significant operational nuance that annotations alone do not convey.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: query patterns, routing rules, return values, caller warning, and efficiency claim. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and organized logically, though slightly verbose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all verdict values, explains error semantics under could_not_verify vs. unsupported, mentions pipeworx:// citations and reasoning, and describes the internal pipeline. This is complete for a complex verification tool with no structured output definition.

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% and both parameters are documented. The description adds practical guidance beyond the schema, e.g., advising 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection' and explaining tolerance default behavior, which enhances the agent's ability to choose values correctly.

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 a specific verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It also distinguishes the tool's internal routing (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback), which differentiates it from generic query or research 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and provides guidance on company-financial vs. other claims. It does not list sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it's clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Data Paris 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function or data domain, from prediction markets (bet_research, polymarket_*) to company research (entity_profile, compare_entities) to data queries (query, dataset_info). No two tools have overlapping purposes; meta-tools like ask_pipeworx and deep_research are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (e.g., search_datasets, validate_claim, remember). No mix of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb choices.

Tool Count4/5

At 33 tools, the server covers a broad range of capabilities (data retrieval, AI visibility, prediction markets, company profiles, subscriptions, etc.). While slightly above the ideal range, the count is justified by the breadth of functionality and no tool feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for data discovery, retrieval, and analysis across multiple domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, Paris Open Data, prediction markets, etc.). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for Paris Open Data), but the primary focus on reading and analysis is well-served.

Resources