Skip to main content
Glama

Data Tours

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 adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the two processing pipelines (SEC EDGAR + XBRL vs. grounded), defines all verdict types, and critically distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (check failed) from 'unsupported' (no source found). It also warns callers not to treat 'could_not_verify' as evidence, which is essential operational guidance.

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 long but dense; every sentence adds value, from trigger examples to pipeline details and caller warnings. It is front-loaded with usage phrases and structured logically, though slightly verbose for a tool description.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It also covers the two distinct processing paths and the important difference between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', making it complete for a complex tool.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct', including examples and the hallucination-detection use case, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 defines the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases like "fact check" and "verify the claim that…". It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its integrated purpose clear.

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 explicitly states "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct," providing clear when-to-use context. It also describes the routing logic for company-financial claims vs. other claims, though it does not name specific alternatives or exclusions.

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

All Data Tours 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 has a clearly distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by their use cases and safety guarantees. The multiple polymarket tools each focus on a unique aspect (arbitrage, edge scanning, persistence, fill risk, cross-venue spreads), avoiding ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a mostly verb_noun or domain_prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). A few names like dataset_info and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly from a strict verb_noun structure, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier end of the well-scoped range. However, the count is justified by the breadth of functionality: data queries, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory, monitoring, and more. The tools each serve a specific purpose, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of use cases including data retrieval, comparison, research, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for placing prediction market trades or creating/updating Tours Métropole datasets), but these are likely intentional scope choices. Core workflows are well-supported.

Resources