Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Delawareco

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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, and the description adds significant behavioral disclosure: the meaning of could_not_verify (a failed check, not evidence), unsupported (no source found), and the internal fallback/routing behavior. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps callers interpret results correctly.

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 moderately long but every sentence is substantive: intent examples, usage rule, routing logic, return values, and an important caller warning. The structure front-loads the purpose and ends with a practical note about replacing sequential calls. Minor redundancy exists in the 'unsupported' sentence, but overall it is well organized.

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 thoroughly covers return values (verdict enum, actual value, citation, reasoning), edge-case semantics (could_not_verify, unsupported), and routing behavior. An agent has all necessary information to select and invoke the tool correctly, including handling of failure states.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct, including override behavior and hallucination-detection guidance. The description adds only marginal context (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math') beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with concrete natural-language intents ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check') and states the tool performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly identifies the verb (verify) and resource (factual claims), and distinguishes it from sibling Q&A/search tools by focusing on a verdict-based verification workflow with specific outcomes.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing logic between the SEC EDGAR structured path for company-financial claims and the grounded pipeline for other claims, giving clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternative sibling tools for exclusion, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Arcgis Delawareco 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping or redundant purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, and several polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) all surface trading opportunities with similar outputs. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but buried among dozens of unrelated data/meta tools, making selection confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun pattern is inconsistent. Some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are bare verbs (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming style is readable but not predictably patterned.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already high, but the severe issue is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS Delaware County purpose. The other 31 are Pipeworx data, memory, subscription, and prediction-market tools, which is a blatant scope mismatch. The tool count is not appropriate for the advertised server domain.

Completeness1/5

For an ArcGIS Delaware County GIS server, the surface is extremely thin: only search, query, and layer metadata exist. There are no tools for editing features, uploading data, managing layers, or exporting maps. Conversely, the Pipeworx tools form a broad but fragmented domain with many monitoring and meta-tools but no clear end-to-end workflow. The set is severely incomplete for its apparent dual purpose.

Resources