Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Maricopa

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses important behavioral details: the two pipelines, the exact verdict set, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported', and the presence of verification_error. It clearly explains how to interpret ambiguous outcomes, which is critical for correct agent behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and trigger phrases. It logically flows from intent to usage to behavior to caveats, with every sentence providing unique, necessary context. The length is appropriate for 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It clearly lists the verdict set, the returned actual value and citation, and reasoning. It also explains edge-case outcomes and the two execution paths, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of tolerance_pct in overriding implied tolerance and its use for hallucination detection (1–2%), and by giving concrete examples for the claim parameter. This goes beyond the schema field descriptions.

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's purpose as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on factual verification and explicitly mentions it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains two distinct execution paths (company-financial vs. other claims), which helps the agent decide. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it lacks the full 'when not to use' guidance.

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

All Arcgis Maricopa 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, etc.). Descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools from different domains can cause an agent to select the wrong one for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others are nouns (layer_info, entity_profile), and some have prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no uniform pattern, making the set feel chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Arcgis Maricopa', which only has 3 GIS-specific tools. The remaining tools are from unrelated domains (polymarket betting, general Pipeworx queries, utilities), making the tool set bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the ArcGIS domain, the set is minimal (only search, schema, and query) and lacks management or analysis tools. However, the broader toolset covers many data domains (finance, drugs, prediction markets), but with gaps like no update/delete operations for the GIS data. The overall coverage is mixed.

Resources